[Wellsy]

I saw that Jimmy Webb repeated an 8C called Equanimity, which has been touted as "the hardest technical boulder in the world"

Makes me think about the grading system and how we use it re. Technique, Strength etc

Weird phrase. Harder than Livin' Large, for example?

Even Burden of Dreams must be highly technical, otherwise Yves Gravelle and Allison Vest should book the next flight to Finland to show Aidan Roberts and Simone Lorenzi how it's done.

That was my thinking. Surely operating at your absolute physical limit requires supreme technical prowess because you've nothing "to spare?"

That said if someone says "that boulder is tech-y" we all would know what it would kinda mean (vert or just off vert, tenuous holds, weird positions etc) so maybe it just means the most bullshit 8C of all time

[remus]

It is a slightly odd turn of phrase, but I think it makes sense. If i'd never seen anyone on burden I reckon I could walk up to it and tell you roughly how it'd climb (missing out lots of the details obviously). I guess it'd be hard to do that on Equanimity.

[jwi]

How could this be a mystery to anyone? (Except the most technically inept board climber maybe).

We have all done problems that feels absolutely impossible at first glance, but when we understand the trick we can repeat it at will, even in a state of fatigue, because they are actually easy (once you understand how to do them). Likewise we have all done problems that we flashed, but have a hard time repeating in a fatigued state, even if we've done them hundreds of times because they are  actually hard (even if you understand how to do them).

Only people using some daft model where difficulty ~ number of tries could possibly be confused

[User deactivated.]

It is a slightly odd turn of phrase, but I think it makes sense. If i'd never seen anyone on burden I reckon I could walk up to it and tell you roughly how it'd climb (missing out lots of the details obviously). I guess it'd be hard to do that on Equanimity.

I don't think readability has any correlation with how technical a climb is. For example, consider a difficult gritstone slab with an obvious ladder of poor holds and no feet.

The technicality of a climb is often extremely subtle to the point that you can't always tell just by watching someone on it. Drop knees, hand jams and toe hooks might look more overtly technical than generating more force through a foothold and maintaining even pressure (which might not actually look like anything to an observer), but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are more technical.

[andy popp]

To be fair to Webb, the line on his instagram post is actually: "Potentially a contender for the hardest technical boulder in the world?", a quite different claim to "has been touted as etc."

[Wellsy]

I'd consider that largely the same thing. Touted by climbing.com as that at least, anyway, which is where I got the news from

[abarro81]

I'm confused by the confusion here. Some problems you fall off and feel too weak, some you fall off and feel too shit. The more a problem falls into the latter box the more technical it is, surely?

[YorkshireTea]

I think the weirdness here isn't trying to decide what technical difficulty is, it's the wording of it as 'the most difficult technical boulder' vs 'the most technically difficult boulder'.

If we had to give all boulders a ratio of technical: physical difficulty, at what point in that ratio is a boulder classed as a 'Technical boulder' and thus in contention for that title

[User deactivated.]

I'm confused by the confusion here. Some problems you fall off and feel too weak, some you fall off and feel too shit. The more a problem falls into the latter box the more technical it is, surely?

I don't disagree, but are those people falling of Burden of Dreams doing so because they are too weak or not skilled enough in that style? I can't see it being the former. Raboutou, Woods, Webb, Roberts, Timonov, Ghisolfi, Toru, etc. are all mutants. If it was primarily just a matter of having strong enough fingers then like I said, Yves Gravelle and Allison Vest would rinse it! Maybe that is actually true, but I would be surprised.

Also, what Yorkshire Tea said! Terranova 'looks' technical and is surely harder?

[jwi]

There is also a huge difference between having strong fingers---as in being able to pull on terrible holds, and having strong fingers---as in being able to demonstrate high force on uniform wooden edges. They are not the same. If I could have strong fingers, I know in which sense I'd rather have them.

[cowboyhat]

Mystic River looks pretty technical, got to be up there in difficulty.

[Wellsy]

There is also a huge difference between having strong fingers---as in being able to pull on terrible holds, and having strong fingers---as in being able to demonstrate high force on uniform wooden edges. They are not the same. If I could have strong fingers, I know in which sense I'd rather have them.

It feels like you are using this thread as a way to vent a little about some bees in your bonnet

We know that being able to pull harder on wooden edges translates to pulling harder on shitty little bits of rock, that's why people fingerboard and get results. We also know that seemingly "non-technical" moves like banging from two small crimps to another small crimp while keeping your feet on is actually very technical in its own way which is why it takes training to do.

What I'd like to know is why one boulder is technical and another isn't. As Liam says is BoD not supremely technical, 9A technical in fact? It requires a certain level of strength and as far as Aidans article on it on catalystclimbing says, very specific body positions which are extremely hard to transition through

If hard transitions from complex specific position to complex specific position isn't "technical" then what is? Lol.

[spidermonkey09]

The problem is surely that by that logic every hard problem could be characterised as technical, because they all involve 'hard transitions between complex positions,' which is a word salady way of saying 'the climbing is hard.'

[abarro81]

are those people falling of Burden of Dreams doing so because they are too weak or not skilled enough in that style? I can't see it being the former.

I can see it being too weak (in that style), although it's always hard to know when it comes to things you've not tried (and trying something at that level wouldn't tell me anything)

It's also possible that people fail for technical reasons on "non-technical" things. E.g., there are people (like Skofic) who are by all accounts terrible at knees. If they fall out of an easy knee that doesn't mean the knee is technical, it just means they really suck! If I fall off a heel move it may just be that I suck really bad at heels and not that it's particularly technical. (Of course, a "simple" knee or heel on a 8C would count as a technical one on a 6C - it's all relative). Or, maybe more relevant here, if I'm close to my physical limit I may need to be very precise with timing and body position as anything less than perfect exceeds my strength. That might not mean that the boulder is technical per se, just that I have to climb it technically well... if you get what I mean.

I do agree that defining what is "a technical boulder" or "a power boulder" is very vague. But we all know roughly what is meant.

[Wellsy]

The problem is surely that by that logic every hard problem could be characterised as technical, because they all involve 'hard transitions between complex positions,' which is a word salady way of saying 'the climbing is hard.'

Is that not kinda true though

[JamieG]

It’s not really how hard you have to pull. It’s how quickly you have to pull.

[Will Hunt]

There's no such thing as a purely technical climb, just as there's no such thing as a purely strengthy/powerful climb. All climbs involve some combination of each, and defining technique is very difficult to do - it's not just about standing on smears. There's lots of different ways you could define a climb as technical or powerful but most people will be able to intuit what category something falls into.

One way to define it could be to look at how strong the weakest climber capable of a problem is (a method thwarted by stamina plod traverses but let's focus on real bouldering for the sake of argument). C3P0 is probably accessible to almost everyone if they're good enough. Red Baron not so much. Obviously I haven't seen or felt the holds on these climbs but I can imagine things like Alphane and Return of the Sleepwalker being done by "weaker" climbers then those who do Burden 

Given that the problem Webb just repeated looks about E3 I might book a flight 

[User deactivated.]

I do agree that defining what is "a technical boulder" or "a power boulder" is very vague. But we all know roughly what is meant.

Yes, I think this is right, and our views probably aren't too dissimilar, but I clearly lean slightly more towards seeing failure as primarily a technical issue in more instances.

I chose to use Burden of Dreams as an example for debate because it appears to be one of the most basic hard boulders, but clearly still involves a lot of technique. The first example I gave to counter Webb's 'hardest technical boulder' (apparently not what he actually said) was Livin' Large on the basis it's graded harder and is a 'techy' arete. I'm just not sure what 'hardest technical boulder' could actually mean.

[spidermonkey09]

Is that not kinda true though

Well kind of, but most of the time we all know what the difference is as Barrows says. It seems counter productive to break down a pretty useful, on the whole, method of categorisation and make it essentially meaningless. Much like how its counterproductive to break down long accepted ethical practices/ concepts of what makes a problem or route good 

[User deactivated.]

Is that not kinda true though

Well kind of, but most of the time we all know what the difference is as Barrows says. It seems counter productive to break down a pretty useful, on the whole, method of categorisation and make it essentially meaningless. Much like how its counterproductive to break down long accepted ethical practices/ concepts of what makes a problem or route good 

I agree that it's a useful categorisation, but I don't think it works just by looking at something; you have to try it to know (or take someone else's word). I could go into my garage right now and set something on the board that I can't climb because it's too technically difficult for me. It being a technical issue might not be apparent if I were to show you a video of my attempts.

[abarro81]

I clearly lean slightly more towards seeing failure as primarily a technical issue in more instances.

Oh no, I think technical ineptitude is most people's issue on lots of things, I just think plenty of people fail on not-very-technical things for technical reasons! Most climbers, including me, are surprisingly bad at climbing 

[Wellsy]

I'm pretty shit at climbing and it's primarily lack of technique, but I suppose my raising of it is that aren't all boulders technical? Which I admit is a bit obtuse

What I do think is odd is saying "is this a contender for one of the hardest technical boulders" because I don't think there's really enough of a distinction as to what counts, its a bit like asking what's the hardest crimpy boulder or hardest boulder with heel hooks. Imo.

[abarro81]

I don't think anyone would object to "contender for the hardest crimp boulder" or similar though? Obviously it's hard to define but we kinda all know what they're driving at

[crimpinainteasy]

The whole idea that BoD isn't technical is a load of nonsense imo. From the attemps I've seen of both Shawn and Will, even a single slight misplacement in foot or hand position is the difference between success and failure on the boulder.

I think people confuse tehnical with slabby, yeah burden isn't a slab, but to say a problem which involves body tension on awlful footholds isn't technical is a load of tosh.

[JamieG]

Maybe we shouldn’t consider powerful and technical on the same scale. A better contrast to technical is basic. And a better contrast to powerful is . . . eh not powerful. Maybe fingery.