I don't do alpine climbing but I do climb in the UK lots. Climbers here have very strong views about how things should be climbed, it doesn't matter if you got to the top if you did it in bad style. For example, if you are climbing and you weight your equipment even for just a second, the whole ascent does not count (there is aid climbing but that is not real climbing). If you can't climb the route in good style, then don't climb it.
What good style is varies location to location but the lengths Everest climbers go to in my opinion are laughable. They pay poor people to fix ladders across crevasses? They pay poor people to fix ropes? I am not denying that climbing Everest with these advantages is hard, it is still very hard, but just because it is hard does not make it worthwhile.
if you are climbing and you weight your equipment even for just a second, the whole ascent does not count
What do you mean by that? I read it as if using a scale to know the weigh of your equipment makes the ascent not count.
If this is correct, why would that be so? and if not, then what did you mean by that?
Also, why is style considered so important? I mean, is there a similar requirement for diving for example? I know that sports with rules have...well, rules. But for something like climbing, why would that be something to take into account except if you are part of a league that certifies ascents in a particular way for example.
Could you expand a bit on that? it sounds quite interesting to me.
They mean the act of putting your weight on your equipment. If you're climbing up by pulling on the rock, and resting on ledges, that's fine, but taking a rest by sitting back in your harness, or pulling on the rope to gain height is not.
Climbing is an one of the more logical sports, but like all sports, arbitrary rules have to be set if you want to accurately compare achievements between two people. It's just a way to make sure everyone knows what you mean when you say you've 'done' a route.
That said, I recommend ignoring this aspect of climbing -- fulfilling personal goals is a lot more rewarding for everyone than trying to compare yourself to others.
I would have never thought that the action of resting your own weigh in different surfaces would mean different things. Also, I'm sure there's a historical reason for that (whatever that may be), since even arbitrary rules as they may be, have to start somewhere, and it would be interesting to see where this one came from
I also agree that ignoring those rules and achieve personal fulfillment is more important. Nonetheless it's funny how different sports' rules compare to each other, i.e. "you can't rest your weigh on your equipment" vs "you can't touch the ball with your hands" or "you have to run to this mound first, and then this one, and then this one"
I think it's just a logical and clear place to set a benchmark -- you can use as much safety equipment as you like to keep yourself safe, as long as you don't use it to help you to get to the top.
Historically, climbing safety equipment was very basic compared to what is used today -- a rope tied around your waist held by your mate at the bottom of the pitch might stop you tumbling down the mountain, but you don't really want to find out.
In the UK, climbing culture is pretty conservative compared to other places (there's very little sport climbing here), so the (extremely sensible) attitude that your safety gear is for accidents not for helping you climb harder routes is quite prevalent.
You have to draw a line somewhere, or else someone will just find some way to ride a trolley to the top. As long as you're climbing for sport, you need some rules, and if you're not climbing for sport, a trolley should be preferable.
You can read it as "pull on gear". In "free climbing" pieces of gear are slotted inside cracks and the rope is clipped to them for safety. If you grab the gear and use it because you can't climb the natural face it doesn't count as "free-ing the route". Many routes have sections where this is mandatory or very common. There might be a great moderate climb with one small stretch that is significantly harder, so people pull on their gear through that bit and enjoy the rest.
There is also great pride in being the first one to "free a route", free climbing a route where all previous parties have used gear (also called aid climbing).
Full-on aid climbing generally involves hanging a ladder from gear, stepping up on the highest rung, and placing another piece of gear and a higher ladder. This can actually be incredibly physical and incredibly mentally taxing since the gear used might be a tiny hook hanging off a dime edge, or a postage-stamp sized piton hammered into a seam.
Awesome. Thanks to both of you for the explanation.
It's really an interesting take on the rules for sure.
I can't imagine my safety mechanism being a postage-stamp sized thingie shoved into a piece of rock and not being incredibly taxing on everything just by sheer stress of said thingie to break or slip or whatever and then tumble to my icy death.
I very much prefer to fall from an airplane and have a very thin thingie to keep me from making a hole in the ground...
Just to add further rationale behind these "rules" - In any form of climbing - the proposition is very straight forward - could you get yourself from point A, to some higher point B, using only your physical strength and prowess?
If you get 20 miles in to a marathon and run out of gas - you just stop running and call it quits. In climbing, however, if you fail - you would likely be killed, or at least seriously injured. Because of this inescapable fact, safety systems get used. In general, the goal is for them only to act as a backup. If you get to the top without putting your weight on the backups, then you've answered the fundamental question of whether or not you could climb the objective in question.
Said "rules" may change a bit, depending on venue. Some people climb very difficult walls, that may be anywhere from 50-200 feet tall, and a 5 minute walk away from the car. In this case, any incidence of "cheating" by using the equipment to take your weight means, "you failed this time, try again later."
However, when people are climbing peaks or mountains, many miles from any kind of help or rescue, the rules may get bent a bit in the interest of beating out a storm, or just plain getting through a tough spot without risking injury. When this happens, the saying goes, "there is no cheating, only lying." You basically own up to any aid you may have used along the way, and no one will judge. Nothing's stopping you, or someone else, from going back another day and trying again for the more coveted "clean" ascent.
So in short, if I understand correctly, a "clean" run would mean that in theory if you weren't carrying any safety equipment you would've made it just the same. However to avoid actually killing yourself attempting something like that, you just "lose a life" and get to start over again from the beginning without actually dying.
(long time sport climber here from a family of climbers, brother to a serious trad climber and mountaineer)
don't even get them started on the discussion of 'booty' and what is effectively claiming gear from the weak who test their limits or try things beyond them.
Climber logic is often strange and puzzling thing to me. It is some weird hybrid of libertarianism, anarchism, and statism at the same time. The unspoken rules must be followed, unless I disagree with them in which case they restrict my freedom you fascist....everyone should just climb how they want but hey stop that right now...love my climbing friends but boy do I end up scratching my head sometimes.
A good friend of mine talked of a couple he knew who were big into climbing. You could really enjoy your time with them, as long as the discussion was around some form of climbing. Anything that was not climbing was simply not interesting to them - the example my friend gave was offering to play a board game, and them asking if it was about climbing...
what you cannot see if my utterly unsurprised face. I interact with a lot of subcultures, many of which would be considered weird. Climbers are really at the head of that list.
Yeah, climbers are quite like FOSS advocates, having endless arguments about minute 'differences' as far as the outside world is concerned!
I'd highly recommend you do some alpine mountaineering and then see if your opinions stay the same. Alpine is so much bigger than anything you can climb in the UK, and the Himalayas are at the ultimate end of the scale. Given a choice between pulling on some gear or dying - I'm pulling on the gear [0].
I often think mountaineering to climbing, is like road-biking is to mountain biking - initially they seem comparable, and we use some of the same skills in both, but there are also so many differences that it's practically impossible to make comparison.
[0] For a start the "bad style" your talking about is __common practise__ in alpine climbing. Do a google search for "french free".
What good style is varies location to location but the lengths Everest climbers go to in my opinion are laughable. They pay poor people to fix ladders across crevasses? They pay poor people to fix ropes? I am not denying that climbing Everest with these advantages is hard, it is still very hard, but just because it is hard does not make it worthwhile.