[cofe]

V5+?

 

[Pantontino]

V5, plus a pinch of salt : the correct grade for Standing loon Only of course.

(If 20 year old memories serve me right, Our Father would be about V3)

[Teaboy]

In the book Welsh Rock there is a transcript of an event that took place in Helyg (a hut in Ogwen). O. G. Jones did a one armer with two fingers only whilst holding his mate. That's got to be V11 and was in the late 1900's I think.

[webbo]

is beatnik really a problem.is it not a route both rouse and boysen both top roped it back in the days when men were men.has'nt it got easier as i remember that there was a report of a hold being chipped in late 70s or early 80s.
our father as si says is v3 tops.
the original problem on toms roof which uses all the holds is v6 and as i mentioned several pages ago was done in the 60s.

[SA Chris]

In the book Welsh Rock there is a transcript of an event that took place in Helyg (a hut in Ogwen). O. G. Jones did a one armer with two fingers only whilst holding his mate. That's got to be V11 and was in the late 1900's I think.

This is the turn of last century equivalent of campus boarding. You also dont specify whether his mate is old speak for a friend, his lover or his cock.

Whichever way it's impressive, but equates to V13, V10 or V7 respectively, in modern money. But sadly all 3 ways are eliminates.

[Paz]

These days taking live poultry into their huts would get you black balled the climbers club.

[webbo]

These days taking live poultry into their huts would get you black balled the climbers club.

is that another thing D***** G*** did to J.D.

[r-man]

is beatnik really a problem.is it not a route both rouse and boysen both top roped it back in the days when men were men.has'nt it got easier as i remember that there was a report of a hold being chipped in late 70s or early 80s.
our father as si says is v3 tops.
the original problem on toms roof which uses all the holds is v6 and as i mentioned several pages ago was done in the 60s.

Yeah I was wondering that about beatnik. It does seem a little high at 14m. Syrett's Roof was done in 72, so that would go in instead.

So Tom's original definitely isn't an eliminate? I'm confused as it's a numbered holds problem in the guide...

[r-man]

Anyone know anything about this:

Re Rob Gawthorpe,
did he not do the first ascent of the back of the calf prob at Ilkley?A highball done sans mats in the early/mid 80s-v8 or 9?

[Ru]

Ilkley prob is Bernie the Bolt, v8 ish, done 1985, Rob Gawthorpe

[r-man]

Cheers. Probably not the first V8 then, but the only one we have a definite date for so far.

[dave]

have we ruled out westside story, scoop de grace, sole power etc?

[r-man]

Yep.
Sole Power - V9 - 83 (a year later than Central wall direct)
Scoop de Grace - V9 - 87
Westside - 85, though I guess if this is V8, it goes down with Bernie the Bolt as good but probably not the first.

[Bonjoy]

WSS is V9.
 Is central wall direct really a boulder problem or is it just the start of a route which was done as part of a trad lead and has never been considered a boulder problem? Many sections of climbs are given hypothetical V grades by various pundits but this does not make them boulder problems. To my mind including such pseudo problems whilst excluding classic eliminates seems back to front and not a true reflection of the development of the bouldering ethos.

[webbo]

well said that man.




or insect

[Falling Down]

So Tom's original definitely isn't an eliminate? I'm confused as it's a numbered holds problem in the guide...

Nope, it's not really an eliminate but the holds are numbered in the guides so it's easier to figure out if you get my drift....

[webbo]

the holds are numbered so you can miss them out to make it harder than the original.

[grimer]

So named after a particularly strong and long lasting variant of LSD which had our erstwhile first ascentionist 'out of action' for a couple of days prior to the compltion of the problem....

Actually it was Sean Myles who suffered the said Blazin 48.

[Falling Down]

So named after a particularly strong and long lasting variant of LSD which had our erstwhile first ascentionist 'out of action' for a couple of days prior to the compltion of the problem....

Actually it was Sean Myles who suffered the said Blazin 48.

You're quite right G.  Jerry should sue me for be-smirching his fine and upstanding character.. IIRC Sean was stuck in Jerry's house for the duration of the alleged incident

[r-man]

Ok, so Tom's Original is in - was it done by Tom or was it more of a Tom and friends thing?

Is central wall direct really a boulder problem or is it just the start of a route which was done as part of a trad lead and has never been considered a boulder problem?

I dunno. The rockfax description says

The thread above the left-hand side of the roof can be reached by three methods. 1) Use a stick to clip the thread and haul up to it - A0. 2) Traverse in from either of the previous three routes - 6b. 3) Climb direct via some painful and small pockets - V9 at least!

And the direct was done about 20 years after the aid method, which maybe suggests it was a problem rather than a route? Really need someone who knows the problem to give an opinion...

Many sections of climbs are given hypothetical V grades by various pundits but this does not make them boulder problems. To my mind including such pseudo problems whilst excluding classic eliminates seems back to front and not a true reflection of the development of the bouldering ethos.

Hmm, but the development of the bouldering ethos is also partly a progression from climbing routes - one step of which was to add hard starts to existing routes. Sure, if someone says the crux of a climb was V5, but is only using that as a way to describe part of the climbing then it's not really a boulder problem. But a lot of people were climbing hard starts and just not thinking of them as we would; as boulder problems. I think we should recognise them as bouldering problems if that's what they are to us.

As for eliminates, I see where you're coming from but I'm not convinced. It takes a lot more vision and effort to climb something where you don't artifically create the moves but have to first work out what moves are actually possible, as well as which holds to use and which to ignore. Although some classic eliminates might be significant in terms of progress, I still think they are only significant in terms of progressing towards being able to climb at that standard on the more unpredictable challenges of "pure" lines.

So I guess I'm saying that I reckon it's easier to be the first to climb an eliminate of the same grade as a non-eliminate, because you can pick moves that suit you, whereas with a natural line you have to work a lot harder and with the knowledge that it might not even be possible.

V0 - The Crack pictured in the Yorkshire Grit Guide? - Simon's Seat - ? - 1895
V1 -
V2 - Spider Wall - Ilkley - ? - 1930's?
V3 - Crucifix Arete - Almscliff - Don Whillans - 1958
V3 - Wall of Horrors Direct Start - Almscliff - Joe Brown (onsight) - 1950s?
V3 - Janker's Groove Direct - Frogatt - Don Whillans - 1948?
V4 -
V5 - Syretts roof - Almscliff - John Syrett - early 1972
V6 - Tom's Original - Stoney Middleton - Tom Proctor ? - 1960s?
V6 - Barleymow - Almscliff - Tony Barley - 1966
V7 - Red Baron - Shipley Glen - Mike Hammil - 1976
V8 - Jerry's Arete - Bridestones - Jerry Peel - 1970s? (originally had better footholds)
V8 - Bald Pate Superdirect - Ilkley - Andy Brown - early 80s?
V9 - Cental Wall Direct - Dib Scar - Rob Gawthorpe - 1982
V10 - Haston Problem - The Breck - Stevie Haston - 1979
V11 - Superwoman - Crag X - ? - 1988?
V11 - Monoblock - Pex Hill - Joe Healy - early 80s
V12 - Careless Torque - Stanage - Ron Fawcett - 1987
V13 - Isla de Enchanta - Trowbarrow - John Gaskins - 1999
V14 - Kaizen - Woodwell - John Gaskins - 2001
V15 - Walk Away ss - Fairysteps - John Gaskins - 2002

[webbo]

toms roof was done by tom.he was probably the only one  intrested in this sort of thing at that time.

[Bonjoy]

By classic Eliminate I mean something like a good line with ledge which if used makes the problem dull and easy. In such a case to do without has it's own intrinsic logic and is the best way to climb the line, this is all part of bouldering IMO. In such a case you could hardly be accused of contriving or pick and mixing to make a prob that suits your strengths.

Sure, if someone says the crux of a climb was V5, but is only using that as a way to describe part of the climbing then it's not really a boulder problem. But a lot of people were climbing hard starts and just not thinking of them as we would; as boulder problems. I think we should recognise them as bouldering problems if that's what they are to us.

 So sections of climbs are to be included or excluded from a history of bouldering based on how good the landing is? You could have a V9 bouldery start to a jug above a wide ledge 3 pitches up a scottish mountain route, would this count. In other words, what exactly are  your inclusion/exclusion criteria?

[webbo]

re central wall is'nt the thread quite high up.i remember aiding it in my youth and we had major problems getting to it.i've also done the poor mans free version and i think this took combined tactices and a stick clip.
but i might be confusing the two.

[r-man]

By classic Eliminate I mean something like a good line with ledge which if used makes the problem dull and easy. In such a case to do without has it's own intrinsic logic and is the best way to climb the line, this is all part of bouldering IMO. In such a case you could hardly be accused of contriving or pick and mixing to make a prob that suits your strengths.

So you are saying that only certain types of eliminates should be considered. Those where you eliminate good holds rather than pick bad ones? You might be right that this negates contrived problems, but I still think that natural lines are so much more inspiring and for that reason alone (though I'm sure I could think of others) I would prefer not to see eliminates on the list. But for the sake of argument, which eliminates would you like to see in the list?

So sections of climbs are to be included or excluded from a history of bouldering based on how good the landing is? You could have a V9 bouldery start to a jug above a wide ledge 3 pitches up a scottish mountain route, would this count. In other words, what exactly are your inclusion/exclusion criteria?

I think maybe you're complicating the issue. Do you actually know of any V9s on a big ledge 3 pitches up? That would certainly be a memorable problem.  :  I was just talking about when people say things like, "it's 5b climbing to a good hold, then a V5 crux on small edges, then easy jamming to finish" - which clearly isn't a bouldering problem. Surely a boulder problem is a boulder problem in the same way that a V9 is a V9 - general consensus. If most people would do it as a boulder problem then a boulder problem it is...

...and the obvious distinction between route and problem would be whether or not you can fall off it safely, given pads and spotters. Of course there are going to be grey areas, but that's why general consensus is the key.

[Bonjoy]

To be honest I can't remember which probs have been excluded (this is page 19!). But examples of conceptually clean eliminates are things such as Blind Drunk, lots of most of the probs on Kudos wall at Rubicon, Piss.
 My point re exclusion criteria relates to this. What is it supposed to be a list of? Is it a list of historically significant first bouldering ascents, in which case eliminates ARE part of this history, but starts to route which you can't do as probs without a mat AREN'T because they have only become boulder probs with a change in climbing technology and outlook. Or is a list of the first pure and proper boulder probs at each grade, in which case half routes should at the least be worthy of a boulderers attention to be listed ie not a lone prob on a crag you would never bring a pad to, finishing on a good hold from where you can jump or trav off and having a good landing.
 Both rely on arbitary selection, but at least the first can claim to be a history of people bouldering.
 Anyway, i'm only bothering to argue the toss on such tedious hairslittery cos i am very bored at work. :roll: