Policy on onsighting extensions?

But I'm not always a very considereate person, which I admit. But see, the difference between us is that I don't think that it detracts the value of the achievement that this hypothtical person did not onsight all three, and by your statements it seems to be what you are implying. But definitions are definitions, and if like you say, we "systematically" use them in several different ways, then they not only lose their original meaning but they start to mean nothing, and that is just silly, because if they mean nothing then why define anything at all.

And I'll bring this up again, since I find it so intriguing: the fact that in this case, your opinion is held by the minority, which is now enough to justify the base of your actions, yet in every single other case, every single poll, up until now, from which an argument has risen, you have always sided with the majority, and used it to justify your opinion for action. Why is this?

because he is jens, and changes arguments and news posts and polls to suit his ideas. it's just not worth it timo, he'll never admit you're right. your posts were a great read, thank you. and I would have too.

wow! If the majority of the voters had voted to change the definition of "onsight" or even "flash" (pink or red not withstanding), to include: "redpoint",, would you do it Jens? We might as well change the definition of "redpoint" to include: havent' done it or even been on it!! ha ha.. What is the world coming to?????

@ grubber: My idea is based on what I have seen on the crags. In the start I had the same opinion like you...but of course, if this is a common style neither I, another person or 8a can not act like a police changing what people have recorded in their scorecard. Just yesterday as an example I saw a friend of mine who recorded onsight of a 7b+ even he has done the same 7a start of it 50 times. In some few cases where climbers have totally misunderstood the ethics this can be pointed but absolutely not in this or similar cases. @ Scracus: We can not of course change our policy based on a 60 40 majority vote from 630 climbers. If it would have been like a 80 to 20 majority we would have changed our recommendation but nevertheless you would not see 8a act like a police saying that it was not an onsight. just because the route shared an easier start.

I acknowledge the arguments of the purists. However, I'm one of the 40%, because I think their (i.e. the purists) reasoning is too academic. I'm currently bolting some new lines. They are 40m tall, with some 15m of "easy" access, around French 5c. Thus, clearly no scrambling, you have to clip bolts there already. However, at the end of the access route, there is a no hand rest. And also a lower-off, because the first 15m are a worthwhile route on their own, for less strong climbers (or the belaying bunny :-p). From the ledge, there are two routes branching off, one around 7b, the other maybe 7c+. In my opinion, it will be very well possible to onsight both of them. Actually, the access route and the two routes in the upper part all have different names, i.e. regard them as different routes. So for the purists, would it be possible to onsight the access 5c, then continue to onsight the 7b, lower off to the ledge with the no hand rest, onsight the 7c+, and lower back to the ground? If after onsighting the 5c and 7b, somebody already lowers back to the ground, and he would then reach the ledge before the start of the upper part by traversing in from the side (which may be possible by moving over some broken terrain), he could still onsight the 7c+? But if that person, after onsighting the 5c/7b lowered to the ground and chose to re-access the ledge via the 5c route, you wouldn't count this as an onsight in the 7c+? I would of course count this... but as a purist, you potentially would not?!? What makes the issue also very academic is that it makes e.g. a very big difference for onsighting, if you happen to arrive at the base and run into a friend who just placed his draws in the 7c+, rehearsed the moves and placed some ticks on hidden holds. All this was only done for his very own redpoint attempts, not for you, and he doesn't provide any beta. Thus, is that a technically valid onsight? According to what I read above in the thread, it should be - and hey, if we consider someone elses ticks as beta, then onsighting is hardly possible at all. By this example, I just wanted to make clear that there can be a huge difference between valid, but not so puristic onsighting (as in the example above) and very puristic onsighting (by starting in a cleanly brushed route, new as it still is, the holds are really not obvious, you place the draws yourself, nobody is around etc.).  Of course, the difference between having done the 5c access before or not is close to nil if your after an onsight of the 7c+. For sure much, much smaller than the two onsights described above are. Thus, I here vote for being pragmatic on the extension issue - somehow even along the lines that Jens suggests (6 grades lower generally ok, 3 grades yellow card, maybe also depending on no hand rests before the extension starts).

Yes, everything not included in the definition is strictly speaking allowed, lowerings, traverses, pulling ropes, climbing difference holds, I have no qualms with those. I think the question to ask is are they really separate routes? Would you pull your ropes on the ledge unatached? Or is it only wide enough to stand? Can you have a picnic? I think that is a very good question, because if there is only an anchor in the wall, after which branching happens, then they clearly are the same route, or if there is a ledge which clearly differencitates the upper and lower section (not being multipitch)? Is there a criteria whereby each can be dsicerned or not? Are you really only just accessing ? It is very pedantic I'll admit. You could always ask whether you could try it before they started their redpoint practise?  But no, unless you are watching, or actively encouraging tick marks etc, no effect on onsight, you are not responsible for someone elses actions.

For everyone and especially Timo and Grubber that do not think you can onsight something where you have tried some easier moves before, check what Adam says about one of his 8c+. I would underline that 8a totally supports the 8c+ onsight by Adam Ondra and it is in line with the 8a ethical recommendation first published in 2004. I do not think it is necessary for the media to now give specific details of his onsight. Adam Ondra has numerous times proven himself to be very strict when it comes to ethics. For me he is the perfect role model for the climbing community. I also think that Timo and Grubber should not "spit it out" as they previously have said they would, in cases like this, as this would just create a bad feeling. I am sure that this will become more usual in the future as it simply creates more fun onsight possibilites :-)

These personal recomendations sound very much like policing Jens, I am not interested in happy fun feelings, but the truth, general principles and facts, and I detest that you would make a suggestion regarding what I should or shouldn't say, even in a hypothetical situation. I am not into policing, and as long as a person can stand behind what they say and do with full honesty, I have no qualms. 'at the end of the day', as they say, what you are doing is getting from point A to point B, and very much like in life, it's up to you to decide how you are going to do it.

As we are using the colors of a traffic light system; Green, Yellow, Red, and also, " We're not saying there's a definite line between right and wrong but the fundamental idea is: don't systematically push the border of ethics towards more subjectivity, instead, keep the spirit alive ." Anybody could understand that we are not policing as you suggest.

"I also think that Timo and Grubber should not "spit it out" as they previously have said they would, in cases like this, as this would just create a bad feeling." Those are your words. And I said, that I think it is detestable that you would suggest what I can and cannot say in any given situation. That is policing.

We are also talking about slightly different things. You are talking about the aplication of a definition, I am talking about the definition itself. If you say, that one of the main points in the definition of onsight is "no prior knoledge", then by that definition you cannot, with any prior knowledge, call an ascent onsight, if you have prior knowledge of any part of the route, independend of size, difficulty, or other categories of that part. And thus you have to either take the introduced element out, or the thing with which it is contradicting, but both cannot co-exist. A statement, if taken to be true, becomes untrue, if an element which contradicts with it's principles is introduced into that statement. Thus saying that an osight is possible with prior knowledge makes the pervious definition of osight untrue, and this is the definition which I am trying to get at. A definition cannot be general if it does not apply to every circumstance, thus if you say that an onsight is an ascent with no previous knowledge, yet at the same time allow there to be any previous knowledge you not only creating a new definition of 'onsight', but in the case of this definition, you are contradicting and thus opening up the definition of 'onsight' to a myriad of very different interpretations. Now what those interpretations are, is the thing you seem to be talking about. Thus if in fact, the actual usage of the word 'onsight' includes in it's definition the possibility of prior knowledge, then infact, the "no prior knowledge" must be removed from our definition, because it is not true. And thus we have a new definition, more inline with the real life application of 'onsight.' A better wording for the definition you are seeking is 'an ascent in which the previous knowledge of a subsecting route bears little or no effect on the actual difficulty of the route.' How cool is this, I almost feel like I'm in the Council of Trent.

(double delete)