Onsight boulder?

If you're going to take away onsighting from bouldering you might as well take it away from generic, Indian Creek/Yosemite style crack climbing too, as the amount of knowledge you get by just standing there and looking up at one of those things, along with guidebook descriptions telling you what size gear to bring, tells you practically as much as rapping down it first. There practically is no beta for a straight-in hand crack or layback corner (no hidden holds or hard-to-read sequences) compared to a complex, technical sport route where every move is different and where beta makes a huge difference. So to me it seems a little draconian to not give credit for onsighting to bouldering (especially with highballs some of which are free solo sport routes anyway), when there is usually more mental effort and guesswork involved in bouldering than there is in generic crack climbing.

I feel I agree with jghedge. I've been spit off many boulders that were very beta dependent, and I'm confident I would have not onsighted many boulders that I have flashed if it weren't for the beta I gleamed from watching others do it first... -D

Myself I am for strict bouldering tradition : no onsight. reason dustin and jghedge's argumentations are "technically" ok, I see no flaws. BUT that implies that you go bouldering alone, or in small groups in almost secret areas, that you carefully turn your head away when your partners are climbing your problem, that you don't brush holds and/or have a close look at them, that you don't walk around the boulder to check out the exit, etc etc. c'mon. this is totally anti-boulderistic to me. bouldering is about getting hyped together and sharing beta (the possible best line in bleau is called Partage, that means Sharing ). Or it is about looking at this group of folks you don't know for 20 minutes, learning the problem just by looking at their failed attempts, and then stepping to the boulder and casually flashing it :D. It is also about careful preparation of the boulder, in group or alone : checking every single hold, brushing features, marking small stuff for your feet, sometimes even washing with a bit of water and letting dry in the wind for some minutes. giving importance to the onsight concept in bouldering, I am afraid, would make it a ropeless version of sport climbing - and then really I would start to ask myself why am I fighting with this small featureless stone instead of swimming my way up a huge wall with pump getting to my brains. Not to mention that in popular spots like Cresciano or Bas Cuvier or Magic Wood you'd rather want to walk blindfolded : if not you would accidentally look at people and waste many potential onsights. :D Bouldering action is most of the times at eye level and seeing one move might mean seeing all the important stuff. In rope climbing you have to look up deliberately and it is more likely that you randomly see people on easy/not important sections. personally I don't mark any onsight boulder in my scorecard.

Gianluca: That is a very interesting philosophy, and I like it. Nothing feels better than a good session with a few good friends, all amped up and cheering each other on. I find that happens way more in bouldering than in sport climbing; usually its just my belayer who is cheering me on. I don't think I've ever bouldered alone in fact... I like that you have pointed out this difference. I know it's not always the case; as you can boulder alone just as easily as have 20 people cheering you on a sport climb redpoint... but I find it to usually be the case you described. -D

I would have to say that there is merit to both arguments. But realistically it is hard for there to truly be "onsights." Technically, an onsight, being a ground up ascent, without any knowledge of the climb NEVER occurs. In bouldering or sport climbing. As soon as you look up you have knowledge of the route, looking at where the bolts are place one then looks at the surrounding rocks to determine where the best place to clip may be. Even 20 meters up you can see pockets, ledges or tufas that are visible and may be covered in chalk, so if you look up before stepping on the climb I guess it's not technically an onsight, same could be said about looking at the start moves. So, I think we need a better definition of "onsight." It should define not being given or exposed to an extraneous information (sequence, detail about holds, etc) about a climb that can not be gained from looking at it from the ground. This would apply to both boulder and sport routes. People often brush the starts of sport routes as well boulder problems so does that make them flash attempts? So, basically if you've seen someone try it, whether in video or in person, or someone has told you about it it's not an onsight it's a flash if you do it first try. Guidebooks walk a thin line, sometimes the information in them is definitely beta, but sometimes (as with eliminates) the information is truly for the climber to understand where exactly the boulder/route goes. Best just to have a friend show you where the line starts and ends and leave it at that ;) Personally I like to try and onsight boulders but flash routes, mostly because I am really bad at reading routes and the beta helps. But I'm capable of remembering a sequence that I can figure out from looking at a boulder problem. As far as I'm concerned, if I've never seen someone climb a problem and haven't heard, read or seen any beta about it then it's just as much of an onsight as with route climbing. I came to the problem with no previous knowledge and sent it first try using the method that I thought of without including any information from others. I like to try and do it without any help for an onsight burn and the first few goes after that, and then get my friends to give me beta if they think there's a better sequence or something I'm missing. To me that's what climbing is about, using your own skills to get to the top of a rock, and it's also what makes you a better climber. And it's great to climb with all your friends, but I don't like mine telling me how to do everything all the time, I'd rather try and figure it out for myself and hear them cheer me on. Dan

I would have to say that there is merit to both arguments. But realistically it is hard for there to truly be "onsights." Technically, an onsight, being a ground up ascent, without any knowledge of the climb NEVER occurs. In bouldering or sport climbing. As soon as you look up you have knowledge of the route, looking at where the bolts are place one then looks at the surrounding rocks to determine where the best place to clip may be. Even 20 meters up you can see pockets, ledges or tufas that are visible and may be covered in chalk, so if you look up before stepping on the climb I guess it's not technically an onsight, same could be said about looking at the start moves. So, I think we need a better definition of "onsight." It should define not being given or exposed to an extraneous information (sequence, detail about holds, etc) about a climb that can not be gained from looking at it from the ground. This would apply to both boulder and sport routes. People often brush the starts of sport routes as well boulder problems so does that make them flash attempts? So, basically if you've seen someone try it, whether in video or in person, or someone has told you about it it's not an onsight it's a flash if you do it first try. Guidebooks walk a thin line, sometimes the information in them is definitely beta, but sometimes (as with eliminates) the information is truly for the climber to understand where exactly the boulder/route goes. Best just to have a friend show you where the line starts and ends and leave it at that ;) Personally I like to try and onsight boulders but flash routes, mostly because I am really bad at reading routes and the beta helps. But I'm capable of remembering a sequence that I can figure out from looking at a boulder problem. As far as I'm concerned, if I've never seen someone climb a problem and haven't heard, read or seen any beta about it then it's just as much of an onsight as with route climbing. I came to the problem with no previous knowledge and sent it first try using the method that I thought of without including any information from others. I like to try and do it without any help for an onsight burn and the first few goes after that, and then get my friends to give me beta if they think there's a better sequence or something I'm missing. To me that's what climbing is about, using your own skills to get to the top of a rock, and it's also what makes you a better climber. And it's great to climb with all your friends, but I don't like mine telling me how to do everything all the time, I'd rather try and figure it out for myself and hear them cheer me on. Dan

All points made are very good. However, maybe I'm being naiive, but doesn't on sight mean that what you can see? In which case a boulder problem seen off the ground or inspecting a route from the ground, and maybe even rapping down a climb to check out the moves should be an onsight. In my opinion a redpoint is different from a flash or an onsight is because you have performed the sequence or move before and that you have experienced and have memory of the movements. In the end I don't think it really matters. Most of us climb for the joy of it, not to stroke our egos, so just remember to go out and have fun regardless of if it is your onsight, flash or redpoint attempt. -PS.

To me this is the essence of the climbing methods: On sight: Looking at the route / boulder by yourself, without (any) beta Flash: all the beta you can gather without weighting the holds / making the moves. After Work: try all the moves. Some people have stricter definition of on sight: only looking for 5 minutes not 3 years. no quickdraws, nu brushing and of Flash: Not touching the holds, no brushing. These definitions are equally valid , and if you climb according these deffinitions you get a more purer and more difficult ascent. I realise that with on sight bouldering you get very much info. If it was a route you 'd probably call it flash. but there is no need to compare route climbing with bouldering. The main thing is that you do not know for sure which holds to use, how to grip the holds, and which moves to make. You have to invent it all by yourself. That is On Sight climbing! And that is more difficult than Flash, albeit for bouldering only slighty. So removing "on sight" bouldering would not be a smart move. just because on sight is always more difficult than flash. and I will always respect a on sight ascent more than a flash ascent.    

@sebastian since when can't you have a look from the ground at the route you are willing to try onsight? If I remember correctly, Yuji Hirayama spent several days looking at White Zombie with binoculars before his OS successful attempt... And what about competitors? Don't they have a few minutes to try to figure out the moves as well? Yet these are onsight competitions! @gianluca why no onsight in bouldering?! This is fun too! Maybe in a group only one will give an onsight attempt, but in the end who cares? Like you said it is for fun that we climb, but you can be willing to give yourself an extra challenge by giving this mysterious line an onsight attempt! Personnaly I agree with Herman's classification. As long as you have no other knowledge than your looking from the ground, this is onsight climbing. Better if there is no chalk I agree, but there are so many ways to try and succeed, depending on your morphology and style, that in the end I don't think it makes such a difference.