|
dan4geng
Sep 29, 2009, 4:52 PM
Post #26 of 78
(1370 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2006
Posts: 64
|
I'll usually give a route 3 tries per day. If I feel like I'm close to sending, then maybe a fourth. Anymore then 3 then I usually start to make negative progress and get bored/frustrated.
Never give up! Just come back stronger.
P.S. Projecting routes above you're onsight is the best way to drastically improve your climbing. A wise man once told me that I should be projecting routes a number grade above my best onsight.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Sep 29, 2009, 5:07 PM
Post #27 of 78
(1351 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
dan4geng wrote: I'll usually give a route 3 tries per day. If I feel like I'm close to sending, then maybe a fourth. Anymore then 3 then I usually start to make negative progress and get bored/frustrated. Never give up! Just come back stronger. P.S. Projecting routes above you're onsight is the best way to drastically improve your climbing. A wise man once told me that I should be projecting routes a number grade above my best onsight.
I believe about 50% of your post script.
|
|
|
|
|
dan4geng
Sep 29, 2009, 5:13 PM
Post #28 of 78
(1340 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2006
Posts: 64
|
A wise man Canadian once told me that I should be projecting routes a number grade above my best onsight.
believe me now?
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Sep 29, 2009, 5:23 PM
Post #29 of 78
(1331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
dan4geng wrote: A wise man Canadian once told me that I should be projecting routes a number grade above my best onsight. believe me now?
Absolutely.
|
|
|
|
|
mleogrande
Sep 30, 2009, 12:35 AM
Post #30 of 78
(1280 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2009
Posts: 48
|
I don't think it's good to dwell on one climb. I like to climb hard, but while mixing it up. However, sometimes I do project stuff and I will put in as many tries as it takes. I recently sent a short 5.12d that took me over 500 falls. The climb is high tensity with no let up. People told me I wasn't ready for it yet due to the number of falls I was taking. The climb intimidated me and was mentally draining to work on. Nothing has ever felt better than the day I sent it.
|
|
|
|
|
LoveGettingStoned
Sep 30, 2009, 12:54 AM
Post #31 of 78
(1277 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2009
Posts: 25
|
jt512 wrote: It's amusing that almost everyone in the thread defines a redpoint as a route that they tried to onsight, and failed. There's a strong onsight bias at this website. Jay
When they can only redpoint 5.7, their 5.5 onsights make them feel like they have a cucumber in their pants.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Sep 30, 2009, 7:02 AM
Post #32 of 78
(1232 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
I'm currently working a red point, actually also a first ascent. I've been on the route about 20 times, that's a lot for me, but this lines has my attention. I bolted it about a year ago. I've done all the moves, just need to link them all. I don't always fall at the same place, so I know it will go. A couple other strong climbers have worked it. We're guessing 5.13b or c.
As for red pointing Multi-pitch trad, I am working on freeing a route I put up a year+ ago. I aided a few pitches on the first ascent.
The line is 22 pitches. I've freed a lot of the pitches, but a few have eluded me. All are gear protected pitches and all are being work, so they qualify as red-point. (First Free Ascent too)
I took 15 trips to Half Dome trying to free the Regular route in the early 90's. Relocated since. I did manage a 27 hours ascent, but never red-pointed the route.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Sep 30, 2009, 1:51 PM
Post #33 of 78
(1206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
I don't climb sport very often, but when I do, I don't tend to project. I think the most attempts i have ever made on something is probably 5 or 6. The most I have done and redpointed is 2. It's not a question of giving up, it's a question of wasting time. I would rather do as many new climbs as I can rather than spend a significant amount of time on one climb.
If I climbed sport predominantly and spent a lot of my time in one area, then I might feel differently.
For those of you who are bringing up multipitch trad, someone once told me there is no redpointing in trad. That's what makes it "trad." Not sure I totally agree with that, but when there is a discussion on redpointing, it is pertaining to sport.
Josh
(This post was edited by blueeyedclimber on Sep 30, 2009, 1:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Sep 30, 2009, 1:52 PM
Post #34 of 78
(1202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
I really like working and redpointing something difficult for me. I feel it gives me a chance to learn some of the subtleties required on a harder climb which I can use to continue improving.
I feel like I've spent a long time working certain routes, but I don't think it's ever as long as I suspect. Considering I wouldn't be able to put in more than a few good burns on a route a day, I probably haven't tried these routes as many times as I feel like I have either.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Sep 30, 2009, 2:03 PM
Post #35 of 78
(1192 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: For those of you who are bringing up multipitch trad, someone once told me there is no redpointing in trad. That's what makes it "trad." Not sure I totally agree with that, but when there is a discussion on redpointing, it is pertaining to sport.
That is wrong. Even some of the more pure hard trad lines at the Gunks and in Yosemite were technically "redpoints," even if they term did not exist back then. The big difference was that in the early days it was considered bad style if you did not lower from your falling point, pull the rope, and re-lead the pitch. But whether un-onsighted routes went up that way, or through intended hangdogging, both would qualify today as "redpoints."
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Sep 30, 2009, 2:15 PM
Post #36 of 78
(1181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
camhead wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: For those of you who are bringing up multipitch trad, someone once told me there is no redpointing in trad. That's what makes it "trad." Not sure I totally agree with that, but when there is a discussion on redpointing, it is pertaining to sport. That is wrong. Even some of the more pure hard trad lines at the Gunks and in Yosemite were technically "redpoints," even if they term did not exist back then. The big difference was that in the early days it was considered bad style if you did not lower from your falling point, pull the rope, and re-lead the pitch. But whether un-onsighted routes went up that way, or through intended hangdogging, both would qualify today as "redpoints."
By the literal definition, maybe. But redpointing, as a definition is a sport climbing term. If climbing is all one language, then maybe I agree with you, but are they? Who decided that redpointing must also apply to trad climbing? Maybe it's sprad!
I am well aware of the history of some hard "trad" climbs. I am not taking anything away form the FA's of them. I am merely suggesting that many people believe (I'm on the fence) that it's only "trad" if it's ground up onsight. That doesn't mean you can't go back and get a climb clean and be damn proud of it. It's just that when people have a serious discussion about "redpointing" tactics, they are talking sport.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Sep 30, 2009, 2:30 PM
Post #37 of 78
(1167 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: camhead wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: For those of you who are bringing up multipitch trad, someone once told me there is no redpointing in trad. That's what makes it "trad." Not sure I totally agree with that, but when there is a discussion on redpointing, it is pertaining to sport. That is wrong. Even some of the more pure hard trad lines at the Gunks and in Yosemite were technically "redpoints," even if they term did not exist back then. The big difference was that in the early days it was considered bad style if you did not lower from your falling point, pull the rope, and re-lead the pitch. But whether un-onsighted routes went up that way, or through intended hangdogging, both would qualify today as "redpoints." By the literal definition, maybe. But redpointing, as a definition is a sport climbing term. If climbing is all one language, then maybe I agree with you, but are they? Who decided that redpointing must also apply to trad climbing? Maybe it's sprad! I am well aware of the history of some hard "trad" climbs. I am not taking anything away form the FA's of them. I am merely suggesting that many people believe (I'm on the fence) that it's only "trad" if it's ground up onsight. That doesn't mean you can't go back and get a climb clean and be damn proud of it. It's just that when people have a serious discussion about "redpointing" tactics, they are talking sport. Josh
Yeah, like I said, many ascents that even the most stalwart "purists" would call "trad" were done in ways that we would not call "projecting," or "redpoints." And it even the debate between fixed or removable gear has long been pretty contradictory-- how many onsight, ground-up, trad ascents utilized fixed pitons from past aid ascents?
However, if you accept that "trad" climbing in general refers to "removable gear placed on lead," which is what it largely means TODAY, project-style redpointing is very much a part of the game, whether in gritstone headpoints, multiple free attempts at an FA bigwall on Baffin Island, or with a well-travelled single pitch crack line.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Sep 30, 2009, 2:37 PM
Post #38 of 78
(1157 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
camhead wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: camhead wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: For those of you who are bringing up multipitch trad, someone once told me there is no redpointing in trad. That's what makes it "trad." Not sure I totally agree with that, but when there is a discussion on redpointing, it is pertaining to sport. That is wrong. Even some of the more pure hard trad lines at the Gunks and in Yosemite were technically "redpoints," even if they term did not exist back then. The big difference was that in the early days it was considered bad style if you did not lower from your falling point, pull the rope, and re-lead the pitch. But whether un-onsighted routes went up that way, or through intended hangdogging, both would qualify today as "redpoints." By the literal definition, maybe. But redpointing, as a definition is a sport climbing term. If climbing is all one language, then maybe I agree with you, but are they? Who decided that redpointing must also apply to trad climbing? Maybe it's sprad! I am well aware of the history of some hard "trad" climbs. I am not taking anything away form the FA's of them. I am merely suggesting that many people believe (I'm on the fence) that it's only "trad" if it's ground up onsight. That doesn't mean you can't go back and get a climb clean and be damn proud of it. It's just that when people have a serious discussion about "redpointing" tactics, they are talking sport. Josh Yeah, like I said, many ascents that even the most stalwart "purists" would call "trad" were done in ways that we would not call "projecting," or "redpoints." And it even the debate between fixed or removable gear has long been pretty contradictory-- how many onsight, ground-up, trad ascents utilized fixed pitons from past aid ascents? However, if you accept that "trad" climbing in general refers to "removable gear placed on lead," which is what it largely means TODAY, project-style redpointing is very much a part of the game, whether in gritstone headpoints, multiple free attempts at an FA bigwall on Baffin Island, or with a well-travelled single pitch crack line.
Yeah, I agree......BUT, would you bring up a discussion about redpointing referring to your recent trip to the GUnks? hmmmmmmm?
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Sep 30, 2009, 2:41 PM
Post #39 of 78
(1151 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: camhead wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: camhead wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: For those of you who are bringing up multipitch trad, someone once told me there is no redpointing in trad. That's what makes it "trad." Not sure I totally agree with that, but when there is a discussion on redpointing, it is pertaining to sport. That is wrong. Even some of the more pure hard trad lines at the Gunks and in Yosemite were technically "redpoints," even if they term did not exist back then. The big difference was that in the early days it was considered bad style if you did not lower from your falling point, pull the rope, and re-lead the pitch. But whether un-onsighted routes went up that way, or through intended hangdogging, both would qualify today as "redpoints." By the literal definition, maybe. But redpointing, as a definition is a sport climbing term. If climbing is all one language, then maybe I agree with you, but are they? Who decided that redpointing must also apply to trad climbing? Maybe it's sprad! I am well aware of the history of some hard "trad" climbs. I am not taking anything away form the FA's of them. I am merely suggesting that many people believe (I'm on the fence) that it's only "trad" if it's ground up onsight. That doesn't mean you can't go back and get a climb clean and be damn proud of it. It's just that when people have a serious discussion about "redpointing" tactics, they are talking sport. Josh Yeah, like I said, many ascents that even the most stalwart "purists" would call "trad" were done in ways that we would not call "projecting," or "redpoints." And it even the debate between fixed or removable gear has long been pretty contradictory-- how many onsight, ground-up, trad ascents utilized fixed pitons from past aid ascents? However, if you accept that "trad" climbing in general refers to "removable gear placed on lead," which is what it largely means TODAY, project-style redpointing is very much a part of the game, whether in gritstone headpoints, multiple free attempts at an FA bigwall on Baffin Island, or with a well-travelled single pitch crack line. Yeah, I agree......BUT, would you bring up a discussion about redpointing referring to your recent trip to the GUnks? hmmmmmmm?
haha! Since I did not redpoint anything of note, probably not! Though my spiritual crime was obviously stemming from an attempt to pinkpoint that roof crack. In the end, I see ethics boiling down to "don't harm the rock," and I see style as boiling down to "be honest about what you've done."
We're going to be at the Gunks again over Columbus Day weekend again, if you guys want to meet up!
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 30, 2009, 2:52 PM
Post #40 of 78
(1146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: I am merely suggesting that many people believe (I'm on the fence) that it's only "trad" if it's ground up onsight.
No knowledgeable climber would claim that only onsighting counts as "trad." As Jeff Smoot writes in the introduction to Rock Climbing Washington:
Jeff Smoot wrote: In the old days, ... [m]any a "free first ascent" was done yo-yo style, with climbers taking turns climbing higher than their partner, placing another piece of gear, calling off and lowering, until one of them actually finished the pitch without falling off.
Many FFAs in Joshua Tree were done in this style, as well.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Sep 30, 2009, 2:54 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Sep 30, 2009, 4:30 PM
Post #41 of 78
(1122 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
jt512 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: I am merely suggesting that many people believe (I'm on the fence) that it's only "trad" if it's ground up onsight. No knowledgeable climber would claim that only onsighting counts as "trad." As Jeff Smoot writes in the introduction to Rock Climbing Washington: Jeff Smoot wrote: In the old days, ... [m]any a "free first ascent" was done yo-yo style, with climbers taking turns climbing higher than their partner, placing another piece of gear, calling off and lowering, until one of them actually finished the pitch without falling off. Many FFAs in Joshua Tree were done in this style, as well. Jay
But I consider that different than redpointing. The next guy is still going into uncharted territory, correct? Unless you go from bottom to top clean, you lower off and let the next guy try.
Semantics aside, my only real point (which I believe you agree with) was that "redpoint" tactics are mainly (if not entirely) a sport climbing discussion.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Sep 30, 2009, 5:01 PM
Post #42 of 78
(1109 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
jt512 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: I am merely suggesting that many people believe (I'm on the fence) that it's only "trad" if it's ground up onsight. No knowledgeable climber would claim that only onsighting counts as "trad." As Jeff Smoot writes in the introduction to Rock Climbing Washington: Jeff Smoot wrote: In the old days, ... [m]any a "free first ascent" was done yo-yo style, with climbers taking turns climbing higher than their partner, placing another piece of gear, calling off and lowering, until one of them actually finished the pitch without falling off. Many FFAs in Joshua Tree were done in this style, as well. Jay
No question that yo-yo ascents were free - the gear would never be weighted all the way up the pitch if it were to count. The issues were:
1. Whether to pull the rope from the high piece before the next go - how much or a TR do you want (not any different then stick clipping really). The purists would always pull first.
2. The fact that the gear wouldn't have all been placed on the same go as the one that made it all the way cleanly. If this was the case and the gear was removable (nuts not pins) then the door was left open for a "better" ascent in the future. But the clean yo-yo would still typically get credit for the FFA.
Then rger was jim Erickson and the concept of tainting - the epitomy of the on-sight mentality.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Sep 30, 2009, 5:06 PM
Post #43 of 78
(1107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: jt512 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: I am merely suggesting that many people believe (I'm on the fence) that it's only "trad" if it's ground up onsight. No knowledgeable climber would claim that only onsighting counts as "trad." As Jeff Smoot writes in the introduction to Rock Climbing Washington: Jeff Smoot wrote: In the old days, ... [m]any a "free first ascent" was done yo-yo style, with climbers taking turns climbing higher than their partner, placing another piece of gear, calling off and lowering, until one of them actually finished the pitch without falling off. Many FFAs in Joshua Tree were done in this style, as well. Jay But I consider that different than redpointing. The next guy is still going into uncharted territory, correct? Unless you go from bottom to top clean, you lower off and let the next guy try. Semantics aside, my only real point (which I believe you agree with) was that "redpoint" tactics are mainly (if not entirely) a sport climbing discussion. Josh
Well, for no other reason beyond the fact that I wouldn't know what to call it, when I do a route clean after the first time of not doing it clean, regardless if it is trad or sport, I call it a redpoint...even in the 'Gunks.
I guess redpointing probably came from sport, but I'm not so sure it can't apply to trad, too. For me, it is simply a clean attempt on a route after a failed attempt. If that isn't a redpoint because it took place on a trad route, then what would it be otherwise?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 30, 2009, 5:34 PM
Post #44 of 78
(1092 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: jt512 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: I am merely suggesting that many people believe (I'm on the fence) that it's only "trad" if it's ground up onsight. No knowledgeable climber would claim that only onsighting counts as "trad." As Jeff Smoot writes in the introduction to Rock Climbing Washington: Jeff Smoot wrote: In the old days, ... [m]any a "free first ascent" was done yo-yo style, with climbers taking turns climbing higher than their partner, placing another piece of gear, calling off and lowering, until one of them actually finished the pitch without falling off. Many FFAs in Joshua Tree were done in this style, as well. Jay But I consider that different than redpointing.
That was not my point. You said that unless a route was climbed on sight, it was not "trad." That is false.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 30, 2009, 5:37 PM
Post #45 of 78
(1087 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: Semantics aside, my only real point (which I believe you agree with) was that "redpoint" tactics are mainly (if not entirely) a sport climbing discussion.
I think that using the word "redpoint" here is unclear. What is clearly a sport climbing tactic, and not a trad tactic, is hangdogging. Whether a traditional yo-yo ascent is a redpoint, really is just a matter of semantics.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Bag11s
Sep 30, 2009, 5:50 PM
Post #46 of 78
(1078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2009
Posts: 98
|
In addition to sport climbing, I work multi-pitch trad routes also, aiming for the redpoint (long and free). These include routes I have no expectation of onsighting. I do not consider reconnaissance "failure", but think of such missions in the same light as projecting a sport climb. The only difference for me is dealing with the added labor of engineering protection while climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
xaniel2000
Sep 30, 2009, 5:59 PM
Post #47 of 78
(1072 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2007
Posts: 99
|
camhead wrote: In the end, I see ethics boiling down to "don't harm the rock," and I see style as boiling down to "be honest about what you've done."
Quoted for truth!
|
|
|
|
|
IsayAutumn
Sep 30, 2009, 7:03 PM
Post #48 of 78
(1042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Posts: 355
|
xaniel2000 wrote: camhead wrote: In the end, I see ethics boiling down to "don't harm the rock," and I see style as boiling down to "be honest about what you've done." Quoted for truth!
I like that, too. Is that a camhead original, or did he lift it from a fortune cookie?
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Sep 30, 2009, 7:28 PM
Post #49 of 78
(1024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
jt512 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: jt512 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: I am merely suggesting that many people believe (I'm on the fence) that it's only "trad" if it's ground up onsight. No knowledgeable climber would claim that only onsighting counts as "trad." As Jeff Smoot writes in the introduction to Rock Climbing Washington: Jeff Smoot wrote: In the old days, ... [m]any a "free first ascent" was done yo-yo style, with climbers taking turns climbing higher than their partner, placing another piece of gear, calling off and lowering, until one of them actually finished the pitch without falling off. Many FFAs in Joshua Tree were done in this style, as well. Jay But I consider that different than redpointing. That was not my point. You said that unless a route was climbed on sight, it was not "trad." That is false. Jay
Have I ever redpointed a trad route? You bet your ass I did!
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Sep 30, 2009, 7:31 PM
Post #50 of 78
(1018 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
So if a guy climbs halfway up a route, gets stymied but doesn't ever hang on gear, backs off, and comes back the next day and sends - is it a redpoint or an onsight?
|
|
|
|
|
|
