Mammut Bus
Vertical-Life
Climb to Paris
POWERED BY Mammut Logo
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
meters to Paris
VERTICAL-LIFE STATS
0
Members
0
Total ascents
0
Ascents last 30 Days
0
Ascents last 24 hours
Open forum

Policy on onsighting extensions?

Just wanting to hear peoples thoughts: Suppose there's a 20 meter route (6c+) with a 15 meter extension (giving a total of 7b). I onsight to the first lower-off and can't continue because I have too few quickdraws and only a 60 meter rope. Then I come back next year with more draws and a longer rope. I climb the first pitch and onsight the extension, then lower off. Can I claim an onsight of the extension route (7b) or is this cheating because I redpoint the lower pitch? The route I have in mind is Aeolia on Kalymnos.
Here is an old article discussing Ethics and Practice which suggest that it is OK, " When the shared part of the climb is a full grade lower, i.e. a 6c start is divided into two 7c's." What you are talking about is three grades below which we have said is "yellow card". It is impossible to give a clear rule. Basically it is up to you and the important thing is not to do it systematically, I mean you can not work the lower part many times and then go for the extension. Yellow card: "When the shared part of the climb is three steps lower, i.e. a 6c start is divided into two 7a+'s."
i guess you can`t. you can only onsight, what you haven`t touched or got beta about. if  you wanna onsight, you have to think tactically about rope-lenght, draws, etc. . if you don`t do so and can not complete the route, your onsight attempt has failed. The only thing left would be the redpoint of Aeolia-extension (7b).
  Well, for starters, the classification of your ascent certainly cannot be "onsight"! Onsight means, no prior knowledge!- Walk up; climb a route you've never even looked at much less tried or worked the sections! Now, what you might try to claim, as the style of your ascent, would be "flash".. Oops, you can't do that either! You've already worked/climbed more than half of it!! Your ascent is called a "redpoint"; you climbed a route without falling, starting from the prescribed begginning or ground and ending at the prescribed "end" or anchors- having already been on the climb before! No onsight.. No Flash.. Redpoint though! Good job! Maybe you'll flash or onsight another climb! That is, "if" you have never tried it or been on it before!!!
@ bomberone & Scracus: My experience is that most of the best climbers can say that it is OK, if the difference in difficulty is huge. Further more, many athletes sometimes stops an onsight attempt and reverse or jump to the ground and then try again.
Jens- I've heard that same loose definition of an on-sight used before.  The logical extension of that is that a climber could keep up and down climbing a route until they were able to get to the top and still call it an on-sight.  By that definition even if it took a thousand up and down climbs it would still be an on-sight as long as they don't fall or weight the rope.  To me that sounds nothing like a true on-sight.  The majority of people I know only call it an on-sight if it is your first time on a route.  After that first time on a route your chance to on-sight is gone.
@ Adam: I agree on what you say but I find it understandable that if you are going to try to onsight a 35 m routes, that you actually climb down if the first hold was wet or if you want to pre-clip the first carabiner. This is anyhow how many top climber do it and actually originally I thought it was dead wrong. If you do it once in a while just in order to have greater onsight experiences I find it OK. However, if you start doing it systematically, as you suggest, it is absolutely not OK.
To me, onsight climbing is so special because it is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Once your feet leaves the ground, there is no turning back. If you do, even after a few moves, bye bye onsight. So when you choose to onsight something, really go for it!
By the way not a 7b yet:  Aeolia Extension downgraded at 7a+ in the new guidebook!!! Anyway onsight or not is a great fun climb, one of so many Kalymnos offers!!!
@ bomberone & scracus: Strange ethics, I must say. F.e. In berdorf there is a route called "marguerite 7a". It has the same beginning as a route next to it, called "intensivstation 6c" , but halfway it goes around an arrète. The first shared part is about 5c. The crux and only difficult part of the 6c is 2 moves at the very end of the route. The crux of the 7a more or less starts around the arète and ends at the chains. When you are in the 6c, you can't see anything of the 7a and the other way around. With these ethics it is impossible to climb both routes onsight because of the shared start. In reality they are both very different routes and for me, climbing one does not mean an onsight of the other is no longer possible. The shared part doesn't add anything to the difficulty of both routes, so Jens' "rule" seems ok in this case. But every situation is different and maybe it is just a personal thing...
@ jaap In this NEW case, as you describe it with the 5c, which is devided into 6c and 7a, i would also say it is o.k., to have the onsight possibility for both "routes". i think it`s logic, because there should be the possibility to onsight, when the routes are named different in the guidebook, even when they share a start.
What if you fall (foot slip) in this very easy 5c section? Can you still onsight if you try again from the ground? If you can climb this section twice and claim an onsight...  Say you climb the first part of a route, an 8a, onsight, stop at the anchors and have a really good close look at the second part, a V12 boulder problem. You then lower off, and re-climb the first part + second part boulder onsight. What now? Did you climb an 8b+ onsight? I don´t think so... Cheers
@ Pedro: Good questions :-) If you fall I think you have ruined any onsight. When it comes to stand by the anchor on an 8a and look up, I would say that this is not OK. I think the "rule" should be based on increasing the possibilities of having great experiences and do your best to not take any advantages. We should set rules that you could try to breake...it is up to every climber to show good ethics.
if it's 5c, there should be lots of different holds to use, in that case, I mean if you use completely different beta on the same section why not, otherwise no.
For me, onsight happends only if you climb the whole route without ANY prior knowledge (that you couldn't see from the ground without aid) that would affect the climb and you put the draws in as you go. Only exception is that the draws are fixed or that some other group has put the draws (your friend going first, putting the draws and then you is not onsight in my opinion). Of course, you can know the grade, the length and the number of quickdraws. I think this is the strictest (but at the same time practical) approach. I have very high respect for the ethics of Adam Ondra as (as far as I know) he follows this guideline.
@shock: The problem with the draws: The definition says that redpoint is, if you bring all the draws yourself up. Pink point if the draws are already installed. An onsight is also, ex defintione, a go on the first try without prior knowledge and installed draws. Strictly, an onsight with installed draws is no onsight. Actually nobody is keeping up this definitions. Everybody climbs with fixed draws and it´s still redpoint/onsight/flash, including me as well. @extensions: For me an extension/variation is just onsight, if the shared part is so easy that it doesn´t bother for my power/endurance power if I already climbed it or not. Let´s put it into numbers, if my onsight level is 7b and the shared part is 6a, then it´s (for me) an onsight, if it´s a 6c then not. Hard to draw the borderline, every climber has to judge himself. If there are doubts i would rather go for the redpoint, than for the onsight.
I really just don't get this defenition, it's like you are saying that the 6a or whatever isn't worth the onsight! That it doesn't matter because it's so easy, so just skip that part to the hard part which is then onsight. Ridiculous, I'm sorry, but you still have to climb that easy start, now if you lowered yourself from the top, to the start of the extion and then climbed ok, stupid, but yes, an osight. If you have climbed it before, regardless if it's easy or not easy, it's not onsight.
Regardless of what some people consider to be "ethical", you CANNOT onsight something you have already climbed part of. Period. This is not a debatable subject. An "onsight" is climbed ground up having NO beta and NO prior climbing done on any single hold. Call it whatever you want, but it's not an onsight if these qualifications are not met. Just because something is easy for you doesn't make it ok to completely bend ethics.
I completely agree, yet, since I'm bored, I dare to make a defenition on the subject: 1. If it's bolted, i.e. you have to clip a rope, wear a harness to get to, or climbing shoes in order to stay on the wall, it can be said to be climbing, but the rope clipping is I think the most important factor here. 1.1 Thus if it doesn't have these things, it is not climbing (of course the above definition is very loose, considering barefoot soloing, but the case still stands as a general priciple). 2. Thus if your route consists of (1.1) after which you proceed to a (1), then climbing it can be considered onsighting (taken into account that no prior knowledge of (1) is known), thus (1.1) followed into (1) can be considered onsighting, and this is regardless of you having prior knowledge of (1.1) 2.1 If you climbing involves (1) of which there is previous knowledge, followed by (1) of which there is no previous knowledge, then these two together can be considered (1), and because there is prior knowledge of part of the route, i.e. the first (1), of the totality (1), it cannot be considered onsight.
The 8a ethics are based on how the community climbs. If we were to judge base on the suggested strict onsight ethics, 8a would actually have to inform that some of the hardest onsight recorded in the 8a data base are in fact redpoint. 8a can of course not change what its member have recorded...we can in some cases discuss it and give a note. The 8a ethics are also based on what creates most fun for the climber, i.e. if you try the first three moves on a 35 meter route and a hold breake or it is wet...most climbers think you can re-do your onsight attempt having fun for 35 meters. I can also say that from the beginning I had also a more strict definition but this definition have been changed based on what I have seen on the crags.
Alltough I don't climb back to save my onsight I allways wonder why this should not be allowed. Whats the difference between reversing a few moves back to the ground and reversing a few moves to the last resting jug in the rout which is actually no problem. Furthermore if this resting position in route is a no hand rest - well am I not allowed to use it again just because I can rest so well there? It just gets even more intresting if you are in the middle of a multi pitch route, and lets say the stance is placed on a small ledge where you don't need your hands. Am I allowed to return to the stance, cause it's obviously not near the ground. Otherwise if there would be just a good resting jug right at the stance, could I return to this to safe the onsight of this pitch. Well just some random thoughts which show that not everything is so clear, at least for me. 
PREVIOUS