Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Ethics versus style debate continued


muki

2-Jan-2007
6:41:32 PM

On 2/01/2007 foreverabumbly wrote:
I was topropping
snip
this grade was beyond my average climbing
snip
with two rests and I edged on a bolt
snip
I havnt ticked the climb.
snip
but I have it down in my guide as completed
snip
should I be ashamed?

I'm not anoyed at all, you also seem to have missed the point.Its great that you are pushing your limit,
but it should be a push and the word limit should be considered ie its meaning.you will gain more
stressing at your limit, than flaping beyond it
I am not concerned that you failed on your top rope, but that you seem to be pleased with it, it
suggests that you think of it as an ascent, its not an ascent unles you intended to aid the route, and
were on lead. did you wish to aid the route? well I dont care one way or the other about you dogging-
aiding some top rope, because it is not an ascent, it is a top rope, aided and rested on twice as well,
but I'm interested to know what makes you believe that you can now competantly lead 21 ?

uwhp510

4-Jan-2007
2:53:42 PM

On 2/01/2007 tmarsh wrote:
>This is all really
>just a piddly storm in an insignificant teacup.

Word Timbo.


foreverabumbly

4-Jan-2007
8:02:19 PM

bomber por said:I am not concerned that you failed on your top rope, but that you seem to be pleased with it, it
suggests that you think of it as an ascent, its not an ascent unles you intended to aid the route, and
were on lead. did you wish to aid the route?

I do think of it as an ascent, I started at the bottom of the wall, and finished off at the top. But I dont think of it as a pure ascent, more like when ascending an artificial wall. I am very pleased with the climb. because it helped me overcome mind games and helped me realise climbing is more than pure onsight successes, but is more about having fun. and although I failed the onsight. I had tremendous fun failing the onsight.

All you Easterners with your blutac walls, where all you need to do is throw your rack at the cliff and then clip whatever sticks. My local crag is morialta(adelaide) where the protection starts halfway up the route(on the good leads) and doesnt get much better after. Its not the place to practice falling, or for seriously challenging your leading. hense why the top roping.

bomber pro said: but I'm interested to know what makes you believe that you can now competantly lead 21 ?

Trad leading, I cant. sport or second, im happy to clip into that grade. and at the moment im dedicating most of my time in falling up some of the routes at the summit, bolt by bolt. Although I never said I was competant at 21, I said it help me push past the 18 to 20. which means im more competant in the 18-20 and now am challenging myself on the 20-23 climbs, and if i feel like I had my weetbix that morning maybe a bit higher.


Phil Box

4-Jan-2007
8:50:03 PM

On 4/01/2007 foreverabumbly wrote:
>All you Easterners with your blutac walls, where all you need to do is
>throw your rack at the cliff and then clip whatever sticks.

I find that your description of our walls as "blutac" offensive.

Our walls are more like velcro. ;))


muki

4-Jan-2007
9:49:43 PM

good for you ,if you enjoyed the experience thats the main thing.
dont get me wrong I'm not hung up about what you did or did not, just the phrases you use like
"onsight" not on a top rope. you cant redpoint a toprope, you cant flash a top rope, you cant onsight a
top rope you can only top rope these things.
the above terms are restricted to leading the route (an ascent), just semantics I know but topropes,
like you said, are just for training.
when seconding(topropeing) you cant flash, redpoint. or onsight, just climb it clean, or not!
these phrases have been appropriated by some and hence others with less knowledge will learn from
that and it perpetuates hence the slow and sad descent into the grey area that has come about with so
many climbers appearing with no particular knowledge base.
this is where people say and do things that detract from its pure original (traditional?)essence.
I am a very black and white type of personality, I hate grey it reaks of mediocracy.
I understand your problem with your local crag, bummer, just remember have fun and dont get hung up
on the grades make as much progress as you can at your limit ,beyond it you wont learn much exept
how to flap or prusic.

kieranl

4-Jan-2007
10:25:51 PM

On 1/01/2007 brough wrote:
>On 1/01/2007 BigMike wrote:
>>Although it might be considered unethical of me to AID CLIMB KACHOONG
>>on a busy day with loads of punters lining up for it...

>Yep, you said it. Thanks for the example. Your example alludes to something >unethical in my opinion. Thanks for reinforcing the point. You can't then tell me ethics >apply there and not elsewhere. Just because something else doesn't directly impinge >on other people, doesn't mean ethics aren't involved (see the definition of ethics).

Is it that style is a measurement of performance against ethics? Aid climbing Kachoong on a busy day is bad style for person with a free climbing ethic but I wouldn't say it is unethical. It would be unethical to lie and say that you'ld climbed it, omitting to say that you aided it or it would be unethical to place a bolt or piton in the process.

(btw thanks for introducing this pedant's corner)


IdratherbeclimbingM9

4-Jan-2007
10:42:18 PM

On 4/01/2007 kieranl wrote:
>Is it that style is a measurement of performance against ethics?

IMO clean aiding Kachoong would not be unethical, even for someone with the ability to free climb it.
What is the measurement for performance if the aim is to have fun, regardless of style ?

It could be regarded as inconsiderate to make the punters wait, but one of the things I like about climbing is that people are free to do this if they wish.

There are many shades of grey here, ... which could prove annoying to a
>black and white type of personality
(Thanks Bomb)
:)


climbau

5-Jan-2007
8:54:03 AM

IMHO "style" is the way in which you climbed, and "ethics" is the way in which you say you climbed it.
It doesn't matter how you climb a route (as long as your not chipping holds for your own ascent), but it does matter how you report your ascent. If your ascent does not ruin the experience for future ascenscionists, then to me the "style" is good. After all, climbing is about having fun and achieving personal goals.

Fizz

5-Jan-2007
2:17:25 PM

http://alpineclub.stanford.edu/jtree/HM8.GIF


Eduardo Slabofvic

5-Jan-2007
3:31:11 PM

Ethics are for easy climbs.


BigMike

5-Jan-2007
3:32:54 PM

On 5/01/2007 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:
>Ethics are for easy climbs.

you know ... there's a fair bit of wisdom in that statement!!

The question is ... easy for who?


dougal

5-Jan-2007
4:18:15 PM

To a point but just throw out the bathwater and not the baby. Ethics (professionally speaking what a court would think if it compared your actions with the generally accepted standard of ones peers) is what drives a whole range of issues that affects climbing as well as all issues within the broader community. Access, env. impacts/damage etc. as well as what constitutes 'good' style new routing and ascents. This topic is always 'hot' because ethics and style are inherently important even if in the heat of discussion we can't find the language to express it in style.


muki

5-Jan-2007
8:17:02 PM

On 4/01/2007 M9iswhereitsat wrote:
(Thanks Bomb)

OK I'll come clean It was just a troll to stir up some debate and try and find out what some of you guys
think about the standard of style/ethics out there and what every one had to say about it.
most of my posts are trolls and I just do it for a laugh cos Im bored.
like that guy fish boy ,he's so totally easy to bait ,just young I guess.the grab your tube comment really
gave him away as bieng adolesant (fixated on his reproductive gear)
well I guess that means that the bomb will now go into retirement, people like you are starting to see
through my game.seeya... the bomb

Fish Boy

6-Jan-2007
12:35:33 AM

Inflated ego?

Now I get it.....


foreverabumbly

6-Jan-2007
3:38:42 PM

>"onsight" not on a top rope. you cant redpoint a toprope, you cant flash
>a top rope, you cant onsight a
>top rope you can only top rope these things.
>the above terms are restricted to leading the route (an ascent), just
>semantics I know but topropes,
>like you said, are just for training.

fair call, my bad.


Phil S

7-Jan-2007
1:03:10 AM

On 4/1/07 bomber pro wrote:
>the bomb will now go into retirement

Awesome.
Bye Bye Bomb.
Happy New Year.


Phil S

7-Jan-2007
1:06:08 AM

Actually, I appologise for my nastiness.

But gees Bomb...

hero

7-Jan-2007
10:21:39 AM

I love the way that discussions on ethics seem to always deteriorate into tit for tat* arguments about whose ethics are better, with very little introspection on the arguer’s own ethics.

I thought Brough might be interested in two articles on the subject. The first was by Dr. Brian Birchall, philosopher extraordinaire and New England climbing mentor for many. It was published under the pseudonym of Dr Green in the first national issue of Screamer magazine in 1981. The second is the reply by one of Brian’s acolytes, Dr. Mark Colyvan (now Prof at Sydney Uni) and was published in 1993 in THE Magazine. I can email these articles to you as jpegs if you are interested.

I think Birchall’s distinction between ethikos and moralis is pertinent to this argument. What is called ‘ethics’ in this thread, is actually the morality of climbing. Just as in the bigger world, since the death of god, there is no external source of such morality, climbers must arrive at a consistent morality by open rational discussion, with an eye to the history of this discussion and keeping in mind that big egos are often involved (kill the prig).

What is described in this thread as ‘style’ is what Birchall derives from ethikos, and he suggests this is cognate with ethos or spirit. This can be couched in terms of ‘If I do this on/to this route, is it in keeping with the spirit of climbing’. I suggest that often the answer should often be honestly ‘No’.

* An interesting concept in climbing terms.


Bongo

7-Jan-2007
5:39:50 PM

To quote Arne Naess:

"When one thinks like a mountain, one thinks also like the black bear, so that honey dribbles down your fur as you catch the bus to work."

And to paraphrase him:

"Enough talking for now! Time to do some (climbing)!"


brough

7-Jan-2007
6:58:45 PM

On 7/01/2007 hero wrote:
>I thought Brough might be interested in two articles on the subject...

>What is described in this thread as ‘style’ is what Birchall derives from ethikos, and he suggests this is cognate with ethos or spirit

That is what I thought, too. For me, in the context of climbing, the consideration of ethics is part of a rationale for making decisions. The climbing style is the outcome of those decisions, and therefore, the consideration of ethics.

If you're able to email me the two documents you refer to, and it's no trouble, that would be great (see email address in profile).

Cheers brough

There are 43 messages in this topic.