A BALANCING ACT

Matching climbing's logical progression with ethical sense

Ground up, on-sight, flash, with a rest to garden cracks, oh! and top-roped previously, but only briefly so that doesn't count - does it?!!

Confused? You bet. Even more confusing is the use of sport climbing terminology applied to adventurous and naturally protected routes. Why not? I hear you say.

But is this terminology being misunderstood? At one time it was simple. You either flashed, on-sighted or redpointed a climb. An on-sight in sport climbing is its creme de la creme, requiring strength, fitness and skill, not to mention an ability to read moves quickly, almost on impulse.

Perhaps this might come as a surprise to some of you in more traditional quarters but for me the on-sight in sport climbing has many parallels close to the spirit of adventure, requiring tenacity and a go-for-it attitude.

This go-for-it attitude always reminds me of Mark McGowan, aka The Face, who was a great 80's traditionalist. Mark was a tenacious climber himself, with a twinkle in the eye that suggested when the chips were down, wind it out and go for it. He frequently did and collected some awesome air miles!

In the early 90's we were on a pre competition trip to Volx in Provence, which before the cellar scene was a popular training ground for the French Team. Francoise Legrand was there and about to embark upon one of his infamous training sessions. He started slowly, stretching for an hour or so, followed by some gentle bouldering.

Then the real warm up began, a couple of 6c+'s and 7a's, two 7a+'s, a 7b followed by another two 7b's and two 7b+'s. Then one, two, three 7c's followed by three 7c+'s, two 8a's, an 8a+ and an 8b. In between times, he worked La Plafond 8b+, or Maginot Line as it was called by the Brits, before finally lapping Invitation - a 7c+.

But instead of lowering off he would climb down, foot off, unclipping the rope as he went. Still on the lead by the way and sometimes missing out clips to keep his mind in good mental shape. I had witnessed this spectacle before and knew what to expect. Mark had not.

Mark was a dead ringer for Gregory in the classic 70's movie, Gregory's Girl. He was tall, lean and bespectacled with hair that sort of resembled a blond Jackson Five. I always remembered this look of despair as he turned to me and said, "I feel so pathetic.

"He's not even in the French Team and we're going to compete against that!" "Don't be put off," were my few unconvincing words of wisdom, - "he knows this place really well". Mark tied on to the rope and fought his way up Hueco, the crag classic at 7b+.

You can always tell when the French admire - and enjoy - a good struggle because they'll stop everything to watch. Like a family of meerkats heads popped up from the undergrowth, behind bushes, ledges and even from climbs. "Allez" they would shout. The more you struggled, the more you knew you were struggling because the allezs got louder and more frequent.

Mark was miles above the last bolt on the climb's infamous run-out before the anchor. His lower body was still on the 45-degree overhanging wall, while his head and shoulders were staring at the finishing holds - a stump of what was once a substantial little fig tree but now polished smooth by the many hands that no doubt never quite made it!

Mark struggled to regain some composure, all the time changing hands and flicking the build up of lactic acid which was rapidly transforming his sinuous arms into a state of uselessness. Wide eyed, his body shook under the strain. I chuckled to myself and prepared for the biggy.

"Allez" the French encouraged one more time and in perfect harmony. Clearly they were getting impatient. The elbows were up, a sure sign that he had completely run out of fuel, but somehow from deep within, Mark generated just enough strength to remove a hand. He sort of chortled, or squawked, knowing that his attempt would be in vain. But he tried anyway and slapped the stump before finally parting company with the rock.

I paid out some slack to soften the fall. A good thirty footer at least and even Mark, who was not normally fazed by such distances, commented that he had time to think. He was disappointed and yet pleased. Pleased because he gave it everything he had. After an hour of de-pumping, he got it next time up - just! Phew...where was I?

In the UK at present condemnation of sport climbing and all that it represents appears to be in vogue if the magazines are anything to go by. One month it's the best climbing that exists and then it's the scourge of the land. I find this sad really because much of our so-called "adventure" climbing often employs many techniques that have been gleaned from sport climbing.

Now that I've got that off my chest, lets get back to the on-sight thing. Well it goes something like this. You arrive at the foot of your intended route, and other than its grade, you know nothing about it - or at least you claim you know nothing about it - and climb from bottom to top in one continuous push without falling off or weighting the gear.

Having watched another climber on the same climb does not constitute an on-sight. Some Europeans are even of the opinion that a climb should not be chalked up for a true on-sight. A "flash" includes various permutations which conceal a whole multitude of sins, too numerous to mention in detail here.

At best, it is close to an on-sight, at worst, a psychological redpoint. The quality of a flash is therefore directly related to the amount of information received. Thus the expression "beta flash" which tends to be found towards the less respected end of the quality scale.

To redpoint a route is cut and dry. A climber can employ whatever tactics are required to make their ascent easier but in the end the route must be led from bottom to top without falling off. That's simple! Worthy of mention is that where some climbers might take weeks, months and even years to complete a successful redpoint, others require only days or even hours, and yet the grade remains the same.

"Pink-pointing" is basically a redpoint that relies on natural protection rather than bolts. The pink-point has been largely superseded by headpointing, a technique that appears to have evolved on gritstone in recent years, although I personally witnessed the great Peak District rock climber Tom Proctor adopt this method on numerous limestone routes in the 70's.

Gritstone is an area where many of the climbs are of a very bold, marginally protected nature, and top-rope practice is deemed acceptable before a climb is led. Whether or not protection is pre-placed is open to discussion but some climbers are of the firm belief that runners must be placed on the lead.

As recently witnessed in the popular climbing magazines, headpointing tactics have spread outwith gritstone and sandstone and has become the tactic most often employed on the majority of today's top routes and routes that are given high E grades. Nothing wrong with that. In fact for many this approach has opened up a whole new world of climbs that would otherwise not have been possible to them!

However headpointing appears to have gone off at a slight tangent. For example, numerous routes throughout the country that were initially cleaned and then led ground up without top-rope practice are now being top-roped first, even although the gauntlet has been laid down.

This intrigues me because in the face of an on-sight challenge some top climbers are resorting to headpoint tactics. And I thought the young guns were more competitive than that! Ah well, never mind. This situation can get a little bit complicated where grades are concerned.

What is clear though, is that the difficulty of a climb is most definitely affected depending upon its style of ascent and the choice of tactics adopted. For example there are climbers out there attempting first ascents ground up, perhaps failing and then returning later for another go, quite traditionally you could say. In the meantime, Wee Jimmy nips in, top-ropes the climb and hey presto, it's in the bag!

What's the problem in that? Well it could be argued that they are contributing to a speeding up process, which may ultimately lead to the downfall of our traditional ground-up values. In other words, what is and what will become the norm? Returning to the ground-up first ascent ethic, there is nothing to stop Big Joe the die hard from plugging away until he or she finally succeeds on the climb.

We are in no doubt as to who did the first actual ascent but do Wee Jimmy and Big Joe deserve equal recognition and what of the first on-sight ascent? I have often heard that honesty is the answer to these various approaches but is being honest good enough?

As a general rule, I personally do not like to employ sport climbing tactics on naturally protected climbs, it's about giving the rock a chance, others do, which shows that we are all different. So where is all this leading? Respect for each other's own interests and values in climbing would be a good starting point.

What does concern me though is that the authoritative bodies in British mountaineering could introduce even more written rules and guide lines. I can't think of anything more damaging to individuality and the spirit of mountaineering.

However, there has always been an unwritten code of ethics that we loosely abide by and because we loosely abide by these ethics, their interpretation remains infinitely variable - as witnessed in the first ascents of numerous summer and winter climbs over the last decade. Perhaps it is time for somebody to redefine that unwritten code of ethics. Who would be so bold?

In the wider scheme of things, I do believe that the whole climbing debate is about preservation of an ethic and not an environmental issue as has occasionally been suggested in the past. Although once again in the wider scheme of things, environmental issues are extremely important, but that's a whole different subject.

The future success in protecting our great climbing ethos and its limited climbing resources lies in maintaining a balance. A balance between the various types of climbing and attitudes towards them. There is certainly much scope for discussion on these matters but alas I have digressed more than enough, so I'll finish on that note.

As for a solution, I'll leave that to the next generation.

See you in a fortnight,
Cubby.

5/1/2001

What do you think? Let us know at:

editor@scotlandonline.com