|
|
|
|
dagibbs
May 28, 2011, 10:52 PM
Post #101 of 114
(1222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2007
Posts: 921
|
healyje wrote: Look, it just ain't that complicated. The term 'onsight' - like so many other climbing terms - relates back to, and has its foundation in, doing FAs. It applied to doing an FA on the first attempt, i.e. with no prior knowledge of any kind. That's 'onsight' in its purest form. Onsight beyond that is while you may not have the FA, you climbed it without prior knowledge. Again, in the purest form possible, that would be you arrived at a crag, eyeballed the lines, jumped on one and managed to ascend it [clean] on the first attempt. Past that everything essentially sullies the 'quality' or 'purity' of an onsight: Know it's been climbed? Ding.
Know the grade? Ding.
Know the route-finding details? Ding.
Know the pro required? Ding, ding.
Know beta on any of the moves? Ding, ding, ding.
All the holds are perma-chalked? Ding, ding, ding, ding. Have all or most of those in place and the term is reduced to posing social spray with little relevance to the original context and meaning.
Which tends to mean that you are not going to get a very pure "sport" onsight ever -- the line of bolts basically tells you both "it has been climbed" and "the route finding details".
I haven't been climbing that long, and I don't climb that strong -- I've done, I think, one pure "on-sight" in my life.
I've done various flavours of more contaminated ones, though. And, I do find there is a real difference between, "have I climbed this before" and not.
|
|
|
|
|
sycamore
May 29, 2011, 4:10 AM
Post #102 of 114
(1210 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 26, 2002
Posts: 161
|
That's ridiculous. You're (healyje) conflating the term "onsight" with a FA. If that were the case, there would be no need for the term. By your metric, an onsight would only occur when either no one had ever climbed the line before, or the climber spuriously believed no one had ever climbed the line. Thus an onsight in, say, Yosemite, would be essentially impossible. That's simply not what the term means, and you can't appropriate it just because you want it to reflect your personal "pure" ethic.
You go to such great lengths to define the "quality" and "purity" of essentially your _own_ onsights, yet then go on to accuse others of social spray. Really?
(This post was edited by sycamore on May 29, 2011, 4:12 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 29, 2011, 5:21 AM
Post #103 of 114
(1198 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
sycamore wrote: That's ridiculous. You're (healyje) conflating the term "onsight" with a FA.
Did you even read what I wrote? I didn't 'conflate' anything - I explained the origin and roots of the term relative to FAs. I conflated nothing.
sycamore wrote: By your metric, an onsight would only occur when either no one had ever climbed the line before, or the climber spuriously believed no one had ever climbed the line.
Not at all. I simply pointed out that as you depart from trad onsight FAs, and you climb with increasing prior knowledge of a line, then the use of the term becomes increasingly disingenuous.
sycamore wrote: That's simply not what the term means, and you can't appropriate it just because you want it to reflect your personal "pure" ethic.
I'm not the one attempting to appropriate the term - you are - I've simply explained what it means in the face of a lot of intent to bastardize the term.
sycamore wrote: You go to such great lengths to define the "quality" and "purity" of essentially your _own_ onsights, yet then go on to accuse others of social spray. Really?
The 'quality' and 'purity' of mine or anyone's ascent relative to the term onsight isn't mine or yours to define beyond assessing it against an onsight trad FA - the root definition of the term. As you progressively acquire knowledge of a line past that you have a progressively different experience of doing the line based on those advantages you leave the ground with.
|
|
|
|
|
superchuffer
May 29, 2011, 1:31 PM
Post #104 of 114
(1183 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2011
Posts: 294
|
In reply to: Past that everything essentially sullies the 'quality' or 'purity' of an onsight: Know it's been climbed? Ding. Know the grade? Ding. Know the route-finding details? Ding. Know the pro required? Ding, ding. Know beta on any of the moves? Ding, ding, ding. All the holds are perma-chalked? Ding, ding, ding, ding. Have all or most of those in place and the term is reduced to posing social spray with little relevance to the original context and meaning.
This definition is completely unrealistic. By this logic, rock that has been touched by a human hand is not onsightable.
|
|
|
|
|
sycamore
May 29, 2011, 2:08 PM
Post #105 of 114
(1181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 26, 2002
Posts: 161
|
<This definition is completely unrealistic. By this logic, rock that has been touched by a human hand is not onsightable.>
Exactly. That's why there's a difference between a "trad onsight FA", and onsighting a sport climb. One is called a "trad onsight FA". The other is onsighting a sport climb. If you don't feel you can onsight a sport climb you're simply being troglodytic. The term has a valid, consensual definition within the realm of sport climbing. That the term may have evolved to also encompass a type of climbing that essentially didn't exist when the term was created shouldn't be a source of consternation. It's simply the way language works, especially with regards to terms of art or argot in general. And in the end it seems you're trying to reduce it down to another tired argument for the general superiority of your particular climbing philosophy and style. Which you tend to do, like, all the time. Is trad better than sport? Very possible, I don't care. Is being flexible and adaptable better than being a verbal Luddite? Absolutely.
|
|
|
|
|
superchuffer
May 29, 2011, 2:56 PM
Post #106 of 114
(1174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2011
Posts: 294
|
|
|
|
|
|
sycamore
May 29, 2011, 4:18 PM
Post #107 of 114
(1170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 26, 2002
Posts: 161
|
Whoa-- I was responding to Healyje, not you. I was actually in complete agreement with you. I should have been more clear.
(This post was edited by sycamore on May 29, 2011, 4:20 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
superchuffer
May 29, 2011, 4:32 PM
Post #108 of 114
(1166 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2011
Posts: 294
|
word. i'll delete it.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
May 29, 2011, 8:06 PM
Post #109 of 114
(1146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
superchuffer wrote: In reply to: Past that everything essentially sullies the 'quality' or 'purity' of an onsight: Know it's been climbed? Ding. Know the grade? Ding. Know the route-finding details? Ding. Know the pro required? Ding, ding. Know beta on any of the moves? Ding, ding, ding. All the holds are perma-chalked? Ding, ding, ding, ding. Have all or most of those in place and the term is reduced to posing social spray with little relevance to the original context and meaning. This definition is completely unrealistic. By this logic, rock that has been touched by a human hand is not onsightable.
Sorry, by definition 'onsight' means zero prior knowledge; think of it more as a working benchmark than a definition. Everything past that is a game of semantics - prior knowledge you have leaving the ground is an advantage. And again, trad or sport, chalked holds are probably way more of an advantage than guidebook knowledge anymore.
As for 'onsighting' a sport route? You could make the claim, that's sure a case of "OMG, you climbed something clean the first try!". Definitely some posing semantics to call it an 'onsight'. But no doubt that's so rare an occurrence in sport I suppose you do need a word for it. But then what's the matter with 'flash' which, just like 'beta flash', accurately and more than adequately describes what transpired. The need to make the [social / spray] leap involved with co-opting 'onsight' when what you mean is 'flash' is a bit of a sad statement in and of itself. True, 'onsight' does sound cooler and cut than 'flash' - but that's only due to the origin of the word.
(This post was edited by healyje on May 29, 2011, 8:19 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
superchuffer
May 29, 2011, 10:58 PM
Post #110 of 114
(1128 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2011
Posts: 294
|
i can see you point. however, interesting how in my 'bolted anchor' post you won't support the idea that bolted anchors aren't traditional, yet for your onsight definition, you want as little information as possible. aren't bolted anchors with gleaming chains pretty obvious information?
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
May 29, 2011, 11:10 PM
Post #111 of 114
(1127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
When starting out as a new climber it's much easier to get the opportunity to onsight something than a decade down the track. When I was younger it was usual to be taken to a crag for the first time (or a new wall at a crag) and be told "You should be able to do this, give it a go! There's the start, take the whole rack (or all the draws) and get to it." Are climbers these days usually treated to too many pre-climb details? Did others learn from their mentors the way I did; by getting "thrown" onto climbs? I started out never climbing onsight out of pride, but out of fear.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
May 30, 2011, 2:07 AM
Post #112 of 114
(1099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
In reply to: healyje wrote: Look, it just ain't that complicated. The term 'onsight' - like so many other climbing terms - relates back to, and has its foundation in, doing FAs. It applied to doing an FA on the first attempt, i.e. with no prior knowledge of any kind. That's 'onsight' in its purest form. Onsight beyond that is while you may not have the FA, you climbed it without prior knowledge. Again, in the purest form possible, that would be you arrived at a crag, eyeballed the lines, jumped on one and managed to ascend it [clean] on the first attempt. Past that everything essentially sullies the 'quality' or 'purity' of an onsight: Know it's been climbed? Ding. Know the grade? Ding. Know the route-finding details? Ding. Know the pro required? Ding, ding. Know beta on any of the moves? Ding, ding, ding. All the holds are perma-chalked? Ding, ding, ding, ding. Have all or most of those in place and the term is reduced to posing social spray with little relevance to the original context and meaning.
Very far off base this time. First, the term on-sight is a translation of the term from the European community.
You are stuck in the prehistory dark ages of the climbing vocabulary. Vocabulary evolves, maybe you need to travel a bit more to see what the words you so desperately cling to actually mean in today's climbing world.
Words evolve, the community who use those words decide what they. Some, very few, resit change and evolution, but they are often misunderstood or reminiscing about the "good old days."
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 30, 2011, 2:30 AM
Post #113 of 114
(1095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
healyje wrote: superchuffer wrote: In reply to: Past that everything essentially sullies the 'quality' or 'purity' of an onsight: Know it's been climbed? Ding. Know the grade? Ding. Know the route-finding details? Ding. Know the pro required? Ding, ding. Know beta on any of the moves? Ding, ding, ding. All the holds are perma-chalked? Ding, ding, ding, ding. Have all or most of those in place and the term is reduced to posing social spray with little relevance to the original context and meaning. This definition is completely unrealistic. By this logic, rock that has been touched by a human hand is not onsightable. Sorry, by definition 'onsight' means zero prior knowledge; think of it more as a working benchmark than a definition. Everything past that is a game of semantics - prior knowledge you have leaving the ground is an advantage. And again, trad or sport, chalked holds are probably way more of an advantage than guidebook knowledge anymore. As for 'onsighting' a sport route? You could make the claim, that's sure a case of "OMG, you climbed something clean the first try!". Definitely some posing semantics to call it an 'onsight'. But no doubt that's so rare an occurrence in sport I suppose you do need a word for it. But then what's the matter with 'flash' which, just like 'beta flash', accurately and more than adequately describes what transpired. The need to make the [social / spray] leap involved with co-opting 'onsight' when what you mean is 'flash' is a bit of a sad statement in and of itself. True, 'onsight' does sound cooler and cut than 'flash' - but that's only due to the origin of the word.
You're right. Let's celebrate the 99.99% uselessness of the word "onsight." Your definition applies to probably less than 0.0001% of ascents happening on a rope outdoors today.
Seriously, your definition is so utterly useless. The purpose of having words is to make communication more efficient by having one word stand in the place of it's entire definition. The rarity of ascents matching your description would make it infinitely more logical to just spell out the style of the ascent (ground up, no falls, first try, un-cleaned, no chalk, didnt see anyone else do it or get hints on gear or movement beta or know that anyone else has ever been on it).
Moreover, plenty of words have multiple definitions. There's no reason that "on-sight" can't apply to sport climbing. When it's understood in the context of a sport route, it would have a similar, but slightly different meaning. It is (should?) be well agreed that the movement is the focus of sport climbing--simplifying everything else as much as possible to do the hardest moves possible (bouldering is a natural extension of this). Therefore, what's the issue in having sport climbing's jargon have a similar focus?
Does knowing the grade tell you the movement? Nope. Does seeing bolts? Nope. Chains? Nope. Chalk? Well, perhaps. On the other hand, how many chalked up decoy holds have you held on to and skipped? Also, as far as chalk goes, on a well-traveled route, everyone will get the same information from chalked up holds from the ground.
As far as a route with tick marks goes, I'd just have to be honest with myself: Did it save me? If yes, no onsight. If it didn't change anything as far as I could tell, then I'd still count it as an on-sight in a sport climbing context.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
May 30, 2011, 2:33 AM
Post #114 of 114
(1094 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
guangzhou wrote: In reply to: healyje wrote: Look, it just ain't that complicated. The term 'onsight' - like so many other climbing terms - relates back to, and has its foundation in, doing FAs. It applied to doing an FA on the first attempt, i.e. with no prior knowledge of any kind. That's 'onsight' in its purest form. Onsight beyond that is while you may not have the FA, you climbed it without prior knowledge. Again, in the purest form possible, that would be you arrived at a crag, eyeballed the lines, jumped on one and managed to ascend it [clean] on the first attempt. Past that everything essentially sullies the 'quality' or 'purity' of an onsight: Know it's been climbed? Ding. Know the grade? Ding. Know the route-finding details? Ding. Know the pro required? Ding, ding. Know beta on any of the moves? Ding, ding, ding. All the holds are perma-chalked? Ding, ding, ding, ding. Have all or most of those in place and the term is reduced to posing social spray with little relevance to the original context and meaning. Very far off base this time. First, the term on-sight is a translation of the term from the European community. You are stuck in the prehistory dark ages of the climbing vocabulary. Vocabulary evolves, maybe you need to travel a bit more to see what the words you so desperately cling to actually mean in today's climbing world. Words evolve, the community who use those words decide what they. Some, very few, resit change and evolution, but they are often misunderstood or reminiscing about the "good old days."
It's really funny that you posted this, because my above post was originally going to compare what you quoted to Clint Eastwood's character in Gran Torino, except without the racism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
