will know in our 'heart of hearts' ... i.e how well we really climbed something. All the rest is bullshit, to one degree or another.Spot on!! MichaelGallimore - on 18 Aug 2014In reply to MichaelGallimore: To clarify, I didn't weight the gear at any point, but got rescued off a nea by route. USBRIT - on 18 Aug 2014In reply to MichaelGallimore: I personally think the only true on sight is ground up on a first ascent. Most popular climbs have chalked up holds or have a guide book discription.Pushing it a bit to say "on sight" 1poundSOCKS - on 18 Aug 2014In reply to Gordon Stainforth: But the definition of onsight will determine to a large extent what is in your 'heart of hearts'. If you don't know the definition of the word, it's difficult to have any feelings about it, whether you're cheating yourself or not.If you had only guidebook beta, and didn't weight the rope, that's fine isn't it? I don't think there are any other criteria (some would argue about chalk). Not sure about pulling the ropes, but it doesn't give you any advantage does it? BarrySW19 on 18 Aug 2014In reply to MichaelGallimore: I guess it's like the tree falling in the forest. If you log an onsight and nobody cares is it still an onsight? Gordon Stainforth - on 18 Aug 2014In reply to 1poundSOCKS: > But the definition of onsight will determine to a large extent what is in your 'heart of hearts'. If you don't know the definition of the word, it's difficult to have any feelings about it, whether you're cheating yourself or not.The point is that I'm much less interested in the word than the exact style. When I was leading (up to E2) my goal was always to try and lead a route on sight in one push. Even then, though, there was such a thing as onsighting something well, and onsighting badly (i.e finding it a struggle and only just making it.) Towards the end of my climbing (c. the last seven years), because I was no longer trying to push my standard, my goal was always to see how well I could do a route, not whether I could do it. It was actually very satisfying. I would always try to be ruthlessly honest in my private logbook and if I wasn't satisfied with the way I'd led a route/ had climbed it badly, I'd say so. If I felt/knew I'd climbed it well, so that the whole thing was a great experience, I would actually write the name of the climb in red ink. There weren't so many of those (c. 10-15%). pebbles - on 18 Aug 2014In reply to Gordon Stainforth: ah, but at what point is it unacceptable to climb up, place gear, climb down part way, but still on the route for a rest then climb back up? what if its a big ledge that you downclimb to and have a cigarette or a mars bar? "who gives a monkeys" you quite rightly say, but for the sake of pub arguments I think its still onsight even if you have a little snooze Gordon Stainforth - on 18 Aug 2014In reply to pebbles: My attitude, often, if a crux looked harder than I expected, or I was feeling tired,Nike Air Max 2012 UK, was that I might as well do it in less than perfect style by coming down to have a rest. Then of course there are lots of routes where the crux comes quite soon after a stance, and you go up and put in the gear, come down for a rest, and then go up and do it in one push. That just seemed fair enough to me,Nike Air Max 2013 Mens Red Black, certainly for maximum enjoyment. Anyway, in all the time I was climbing we never had big debates about these things, or bothered by the terminology (a lot of the words hadn't even been invented when I started e.g. headpoint.) 1poundSOCKS - on 18 Aug 2014In reply to Gordon Stainforth: I agree with your sentiments about climbing generally, I think pretty much the same way (apart from my log), but the OP is interested in the word. If you're going to log the style of ascent (onsight/flash/whatever),Nike Air Max 2011 Womens Blue Black UK, and you care about your log being accurate, it's important to know what those words mean isn't it? 1poundSOCKS - on 18 Aug 2014In rep