Flash?

it looks like we do not share the same definition of "touch" (and this is probably the crux of the question) - I understand touch to mean to come in contact with the hold to feel its shape and size. trying the moves requires to "move", no?

I afraid, it is not a matter of touch definition. It is a matter of touch or not touch.

Please, see how all the holds, of Atomic Playboy, can be reached from the ground.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-2goyphR5o Who will be the cheeky guy to work all the moves with a foot on the ground and claim a flash ascent afterwards? Shall we try the holds until we polish them and still having the Flash attempt to go?  Shall I touch them and reproduce the moves at home and still having the Flash attempt to go? Is this the evolution for Flash claims? Will you legitimize it? What are we doing with the Flash definition? Where is the ethic?  Where is the common sense?  I am ashamed to do these questions to a community which just think in how to claim Flash ascents in an easy way.

@ Batu: I understand your point but it is impossible to draw a line between touch and hang on it. @ A0: This is very hard as it seems most climbers do not have the same opinion like you do. In almost all situations like this, the 8a opinion is in between two extremes.

What is hard, climbers from the 80's, 90's claiming flash ascents having not touched the holds, and now people from the 10's claiming "first go" ascents as Flash ascents just just because they changed rules. One thing which is not honest at all in this world, it is changing the rules while the game goes on, and this is what is happening now. "First go" it is not "Flash" style. 

Jens, did you try to answer any of the above questions?

I think it's quite easy to draw a line between touching a hold and hanging on it. as fas as I am concerned (and note, this is my opinion), you are allowed to touch holds you can reach from the ground. in routes as well as in boulders and traverses. you are not allowed to hang on holds if you want to claim a flash attempt. once you start putting load or weight on a hold, you are not touching any more, you are loading and blew your flash. to summarize, my definition of touching is just feeling around on the hold, to see if there's bumps or dents or a 'sweet spot' on the hold.

Hi Grubber, Please, let me explain carefully why touching the starting holds of a route does not justify touching all the holds of a boulder. Routes : whatever you touch in a route from the ground, you never touch further the beginning holds, nor further the first bolt and never the crux. Boulders: There are boulders which all the holds can be touch from the ground. So does the crux. In the case of Traverses, it is even more evident. At this point we see that, touching the starting holds of a route from the ground does not legitimize touching all the holds of a boulder. Now, I will explain why the “Flash style” cannot share “First go style” techniques Information received from touching the holds “First go”. We find out whether the hold is slippery or has good friction, so we calculate the strength we should do on it. We figure out how many fingers we may fit on the hold. We find out if our fingers suit the pocket or not, if we should stick two or three fingers in it. We figure out by holding two holds, in which direction we should pull. We figure out how if we should grip or use an open hand. We find out if we should stretch much from one hold to other, if there is a long way to reach or not. If we loaded some weight on the holds, we would not get much more information than we already have. If we are not sure, we can still touching the holds and chalking them up until the friction match our taste. You get your own experience being on the boulder or traverse. Etcetera, etcetera. If we do not previously touch the holds… "Flash" There is no experience adquired from the route. We have no above information at all. If we do not touch the holds, we just guess about them. There is a huge difference here. Just like a route. That is why Flash ascents are difficult, because climbers have never been on the route or boulder. Please, let me add “First go” is not “Flash” but two different worlds.

Totally agree with A0 there. For me OS and flashing is about challenging yourself and adapting to every trouble you find while climbing. ie- the hold is slippery/wet/razorblade/not very deep.  This is not about achievements, at least for me. It should be about the challenges you face while trying.

I was under the impression that bouldering (while incredibly similar) is a completely different sport from route climbing (sport or trad). So why are people trying to apply the same "rules" to it? Some food for thought.

Now, I will explain why the “Flash style” cannot share “First go style” techniques Information received from touching the holds “First go”. We find out whether the hold is slippery or has good friction, so we calculate the strength we should do on it. We figure out how many fingers we may fit on the hold. We find out if our fingers suit the pocket or not, if we should stick two or three fingers in it. We figure out by holding two holds, in which direction we should pull. We figure out how if we should grip or use an open hand. We find out if we should stretch much from one hold to other, if there is a long way to reach or not. If we loaded some weight on the holds, we would not get much more information than we already have. If we are not sure, we can still touching the holds and chalking them up until the friction match our taste. You get your own experience being on the boulder or traverse. Etcetera, etcetera. If we do not previously touch the holds… "Flash" There is no experience adquired from the route. We have no above information at all. If we do not touch the holds, we just guess about them. There is a huge difference here. Just like a route. Just to clarify A0 ... do you consider it a "flash" if I don't do any of the above (i.e. I do not touch holds until I begin climbing), BUT I watch my mate climb the problem, and am able to work out many of the issue you highlighted above, watch what holds he uses and how, how many fingers he puts into a pocket, etc ... ... or do you consider the "flash" term for bouldering to, for all intents and purposes, be an "onsight"? I personally agree with Grubber ... touching holds and weighting holds is very easy to tell the difference ... you need to be careful Jens that you don't interpret your poll they way you want ... I couldn't answer for exactly the reason that you highlighted ... some people think being able to touch means being able to "weight" the hold (only leave 1 kg on one foot, etc), others interpret it to mean applying no weight, but just "feeling" a hold ... I mean really, are people moving/hopping around on 1 foot "pseudo-working" boulder problems and still claiming flash? Like most things in climbing it's personal (pro's and comps aside), but anyone trying to systematically "pseudo-work" moves on a climb/problem and still claim a flash is only cheating themselves. p.s. I still haven't voted as no option actually offers my opinion or clearly defines what is meant by touch.

@A0: you raise good points. however, you have not changed my opinion with yours. I'll give just one example (hypothetical) that would make your arguments break down: imagine a route where the crux is getting of the ground. feeling the holds you can reach from the ground will therefore make the route that much easier. I know, it's far-fetched, but this is the extreme case of applying that flash-definition. @josh: well mentioned! for me, a flash is an ascent where you use all the information you can get from the route, including everything you can touch from the ground. isn't this partly the reason that traverses are graded 'easier' than boulders? @pelican:  "This is not about achievements, at least for me. It should be about the challenges you face while trying." I agree, but this has nothing to do with the definition of flash ;)

It is not about what someone think or not, it is about about Flash definition. The Flash definition, comes to mean something like this: When a route is red pointed by a climber without any previous experience on the route but some knowledge of how the moves should be sorted out. This knowledge could be adquered by seeing people on the route, or having some description of the route. As you know Grubber, there is no a route with a crux in the first two first meters as people either jump, or put a couple of stones to stand up. I have climbed thousand of routes and never found such case and you know that, as I do. As you said, it is an hypotetical case, which can never make a law. Anyway, please, see this video Jerry´s traverse + Ben´s extendion. If you touched all the holds, studied the moves (that is way people touch the holds, just to study the moves) and claimed a Flash ascent afterwards, you would be the laughing stock of all the local climbers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-AKvbvKGyM&feature=player_embedded If you study the moves by touching the holds, I believe it is honest to call it first go and not claiming a Flash ascent which is not the case.

Hi Derek, It is much more different having the information trough another person than having the information on your own. If someone tells you or you see someone on the boulder, it is just testimonial, but if you study the moves by touching the holds, you will acquire some experience being on the boulder on your own. This is the matter.

This is a good discussion and I agree with almost everything. The problem is of course that it seems the community based on the poll (even if it is not perfect) and also some top climbers have a different opinion. So even if we more or less agree, what can we do with this info. Anybody voluntery to write a debate article suggestion the flash ethic?

There have been some climbers through the history who has put the standards very high indeed. They have been always close to styles and ethics. What it shocks to my head, it is nowadays, people who want to reach some standards by changing the rules and the styles definition. In the 80’s, 90’s a flash ascent was claimed having not previously touched the boulder but the starting holds. And now, people want to share the same glory by saying that the first go it is in fact flash style.

Jens, I want to let you know, that people want to book first ascent as flash ascent because in this way they can easily feed their Flash notebook. Otherwise their Flash list will dramatically decrease. So will the Onsight list.

@A0: if you start with 'The Flash definition, comes to mean something like this', you're already interpreting for yourself. some definitions of flash I pulled from a quick google search: - To successfully and cleanly complete a climbing route on the first attempt after having received beta of some form (wikipedia). - To climb a route without practice (but perhaps with beta ) without falls on the first viewing and first attempt. (This is very similiar to onsight , which is even purer: no beta.) Opinion is divided as to what constitutes beta: to some people, even knowing the route's grade makes an ascent a flash rather than an onsight (UKC). - On-sight with beta (abc of rockclimbing) - To climb a route first time, with out fall. Beta may have been acquired before the ascent. (climbing dictionary). in none of those is it stated that you can't touch holds you can reach from the ground. this is your interpretation, but not mine. and as to this gem: 'As you know Grubber, there is no a route with a crux in the first two first meters as people either jump, or put a couple of stones to stand up. I have climbed thousand of routes and never found such case and you know that, as I do. As you said, it is an hypotetical case, which can never make a law.' I don 't know that there is no such route, and if you haven't climbed all the routes in the world, neither do you (also known as the converse fallacy of accident, or the hasty generalization). and if you can jump, that wouldn't be the crux, now would it? furthermore, I don't want to open the ethic pandora's box by responding to your pile of stones. I maintain that touching the holds you can reach from the ground is allowed within the definition of flash, regardless of routes, boulders, or traverses.

Thanks for the search. Those definitions talk about "Onsight with beta", not about having been on the route. See the difference? One thing is touching starting holds and another thing is polishing the boulder from the sit start to end just because you can reach the holds. That is not beta that is studding the moves with your own hands. Acquiring your own experience and finding out your most suitable moves. The same way you cannot touch the holds from a neighboring route, you cannot touch the holds by stretching you up in a boulder problem. Is it so difficult to understand that “First go” is not “Flash”?

you're welcome. being on the route is loading the holds, in my opinion. not touching. in many problems, there are no defined starting holds, just a standing, crouching, or sit start. who then defines what you can and can't touch? touching holds from the ground is for me acceptable beta. I think that even though we are having a great discussion, we won't make progress this way, as we have opposed opinions and are apparently not budged by each others' arguments. I suggest we wait a while for others to join in with arguments and return later with the extra input.