Past Polls

5 Responses to Past Polls

1. 

   Jon April 2, 2013 at 7:10 pm #

   A resounding “no” to onsighting after having done part of a route. I bet the answer would be a bit different if asked about the term “flash”.

   Reply
   • 

     jillc April 2, 2013 at 11:09 pm #

     The whole point of flashing or onsighting is that you’ve never done ANY part of the route/problem before. And the passage of time doesn’t change anything. If you have ever climbed any part of it, then it’s not a flash. Or an onsight. Period. End of story.

     Reply
     • 

       Jon April 11, 2013 at 12:24 pm #

       I agree with you, but the fact remains that the term “flash” is used by different climbers in different ways while the term on-sight is generally agreed upon by all climbers (except gumbies who have no clue what they are talking about.) Plenty of boulderers “flash” problems after having touched holds on the problem.

       Reply
2. 

   PBC April 4, 2013 at 6:41 am #

   I have a hunch this is in response to a poll and commentary going on on another, alphanumeric, site. Someone had gone and climbed a route with 2 anchors, lowering off the route first go (onsight) at the mid-anchor (7c) and then coming back later and doing the full length of the route first go, and calling that an onsight of the 8b that is the full route. This seems a problem more in dense sport climbing areas, like those in Spain where linking the first half of ‘Route A’ with the secound half of ‘Route B’ which is 10 feet to the left constitutes a new route. The discussion over on that other site spiraled out of control (ethics! are there really ethics? I mean, the guy reported it honestly, but called in an onsight. We have a different definition of that word sure, but I still know the truth about what he did and can judge what label to point on it)

   If Ondra had climbed Southern Smoke from the slab start, and then come back and done the Direct first go, would it still be a flash? an onsight? New plan – lets just put the routes further apart.

   Reply
3. 

   nick April 11, 2013 at 1:37 pm #

   haha, alphanumeric site

   Reply