[grimer]

I think that's the central hypocracy in the argument that you shouldn't headpoint or top rope because it damages the route.

[Sloper]

Grimer, I don't follow, are you suggesting that it's hypocritical to suggest that one shouldn't headpoint / top rope routes (that are regularly onsighted, eg pedlars slab) because working boulder problems causes damage?

If so, with respect that's a bit on a non sequitar.

My view is that the real reason that you shouldn't top rope and headpoint etc is that you'r demeaning the challenge of climbing and without the challenge climbing means nothing.

As to boulder problems, working problems isn't wrong per se but it does lead to the situation where people ge tfixated and frustrated by failure and begin to resort to donkey lines, wire brushing and even chipping.

I think the 'bridies rules' i.e. three goes and move on is probably a good place for an ethical foundation stone.

[dave]

I think its more relevent on delicate routes that rely on pebbles etc. Plus there's the kit - a badly set up toprope can trash the top of a crag, whereras bouldering tends to impact the ground more, and the ground is at least reparable to some extent.

[tallsop]

I think that's the central hypocracy in the argument that you shouldn't headpoint or top rope because it damages the route.

Thats what i find confusing, its wrong to work routes to death, but but it seems that its not wrong to do the same to boulder problems - their all made of the same stuff.

[Sloper]

Again, I would suggest other than high bold stuff on tope rope where the forces exerted on pebbles (particularly) are different on the onsight the issue is not one of erosion of the rock but degradation of the ethic which is what makes climbing what it is.

The challenge of bouldering is not about the head game (well usually it's not) but about the physical and technical difficulties which is why the ethical standards in sports climbing are different to trad: consider the reception you'd get dogging Sardine at the snore as opposed to dogging London Wall at Millstone.

[Johnny Brown]

Well the point only really applies to starting holds. Mosty boulder problems are more than one move. If a boulder problem is too hard, you don't get anywhere. Its hard to trash a hold when you can't get to it. The key difference is a top-rope allows you to get to anywhere, and try anything, like standing on pebbles where you would never have had the skill to climb onto them.

[grimer]

Well, it's just that it seemed that Tallsop was genuinely looking for clarification on ethical issues that for several pages on this thread, he was considered to be found wanting.

Fair enough as Sloper said, that the main issue may well be one of diminishing the challenge. But, for anyone who suggests that the reason top roping is wrong because it damages the rock, and if Tallsop were to meet you attempting Deliverance, or West Side Story, or Vienna, or the arete at Higgar East, all of which are probably attempted 10 - 20 times for each actual ascent, then would he not be justified for wondering what the difference is.

After all, in these examples, you don't just get to polish / snap / crumble / erode the rock, but you also get to destroy the ground underneath.

Hypocrisy is a naff word, but bear in mind that his are genuine enquiries, and to me the argument that working routes is damaging while working problems is forgivable doesn't hold water.

[Johnny Brown]

Have you had a look at his logbook? An E1 climber top-roping E8s is likely to be damaging, far more so than a 6a boulderer trying an 8a. Because the boulderer won't get anywhere.

Yes some bits of rock are more easily damaged than other. Yes for an individual ascent style is primarily an ethical issue. But in the great scheme a general ethic of improving style (ascents in as good or better style) is bound to help preserve most routes. The fact that the boulders are getting trashed too is a problem, but it seems daft to throw out the opportunity to preserve routes just because it throws up an ethical inconsistency with the starting holds of some boulders.

[cowboyhat]

Kind of agree with both Johnny and Grimer's last posts.

The implication seems to be though that routes are somehow more important than boulder problems?

Perhaps it is that with bouldering comes the acceptance and expectation of erosion etc, it comes as no surprise that the pebble on WSS breaks, but if a crucial pebble broke on Equilibrium the specific circumstances of the incident would have bearing on the reaction; you have to earn the right to be up there.

On a long enough timeline they will all break - did Beau Gest receive the right kind, (climbers who have earned the right etc), of attention over the years or did toproping cause the pebble loss? Is it important?

And as I previewed Johnny pipes up again, answering some of the questions; its about damage limitation, lets preserve as many things as possible for as long as possible, it being inevitable that boulders will fall first. And yes you do have to earn the right.

Its like Gattaca.

[Sloper]

Cowboyhat, you make a serious point that you should have to earn the right to be in a position on some routes where you can do some damage, as you say a VS punter on a tight tope rope trying the moves on Equilibrium and damaging a ket hold would be excoriated whereas causing the same damage whilst on the lead would not meet with that reaction.

The problem is that rhere is, it is undeniable, a thematic consitency a between working a route on a top rope and 'sessioning' a boulder problem.

I don't however think that the comparison is valid as in the former one is engaging with the route in style x while preparing to do it in style y. This differene is the cause of the dissonance between how we regard ground up ascents (as being as close to ethical perfection as makes no difference (how many times have you blown the onsight by failing to notice a hold etc)) and headpointed / top roped / battered in submission ascents; even when a ground up ascent can have numerous attempts, take large numbers of falls onto runners which can cause damage and so on.

That aside top roping can and does lead to damage that ground up and onsight attempts do not.   A few years ago I say an utter moron trying to top rope the E3/5 on the left of the great slab at froggatt in the rain, and do you know what?  He wasn't making much progress, but he was scrabbling away with drity and wet shoes causing I am sure significantly more damage than an onsight / ground up attempt in the dry. I've also seen people trying things in trainers covered in grit, walking boots etc etc which are in general due to ignorance.

The problem is however that if one tries to deal with the ethical and other issues and dissuade people from top roping one is met with a barrage of people shouting nonsense about elitism which is why I wrote that article for Summitt.

Ethics aren't black and white, they're a grey area with nuanced shadows and to tread lightly and avoid, methaphorically, stepping on people's toes requires maturity and experience which are attributes that few teenagers and young adults have and herein lies the problem it is the teenagers and young adults that are the 'yoof', 'next generation' 'little bastards' etc.

One of the reaosns I perfer areas like stanage far right is that there's still vegitation at the base of the crag and so on, the situation at the plantation and other popular areas is such that it really puts me off going there, but hey the 'honeypot' theory has been done to death in tourism theory and I really can't be arsed in going down that route now, not when I've got some exciting hoovering to do and then a haircut to contemplate.

[tc]

Can you really claim the E grade if you toprope the fucker until the outcome is no longer in doubt?

[Sloper]

Not if you're honest with yourself.

No do I go for a tint or just some curls.

[cofe]

Not if you're honest with yourself.

remember this is climbing. honesty is pretty rare in this game.

[grimer]

What is this 'claim the grade' thing that people talk about? Having toproped some fuckers until the outcome was still a doubt myself, I'm not familiar with the concept. How do I claim a grade? Does it involve coupons?

No doubt, if a person flashes a route rather than headpoints it, they will do less damage. But it seems to me that the rates of erosion on and around boulder problems is much greater than that on routes.

I think a lot of the argumentts you see are fine as long as they are in the vacuum of something like this board - eg the tickmarks thing, but take a few steps back and I would say that if you look at the environmental and visual impact of bouldering / climbing, eg ground erosion, parking, holds covered in chalk, chalk caking everdry holds etc then tickmarks are a tiny issue. And while all that is cool, if people are setting themselves up in a position to educate someone (Tallsop), then it's worth checking your textbooks.

I'm not saying tickmarks and top roping are good, but it's very easy to point at things that you think are on the wrong side of the line in order to make you think you are on the right side of it.

As I said, the challenge argument is the one that stands up better.

[Johnny Brown]

What textbooks Grimer? What you seem to be saying is don't discuss this, because the only logical extension is that we all have to give up climbing lest we damage the place. I know from my geomorphology textbooks a) quite how much this landscape was man made in the first place and b) quite how quickly natural processes would reclaim it.

So taking a realist view, the fact is we all go climbing and erosion is a problem. All I'm proposing is folk put the rock first when considering their ethics. Given the current trends, the bouldering is always going to get hammered. What can we do about it? Good practice for ourselves, try to encourage good practice amongst others. Personally, I've gone a bit further and helped to do something about ground erosion too.

So its all very well picking holes in this, but what have you added thats actually constructive, helping us to either the answer or the cure? Nothing. I'm sure that's a great lesson for Tallsop.

[grimer]

Just trying for myself to answer a question he asked which I thought made a very valid point. But maybe you're right that it hasn't added anything.

[Johnny Brown]

You're right, it is a valid point. Working boulders to death isn't going to do them any good. But unlike for routes, its hard to come up with a simple ethical guideline that will help.

Bouldering is still climbing from the ground up though, and as I said above, that means the problem's difficulty raises a bar to suitors that top-ropes do not. I really don't see any hypocrisy.

[dr crimp]

You're right, it is a valid point. Working boulders to death isn't going to do them any good. But unlike for routes, its hard to come up with a simple ethical guideline that will help.

Bouldering is still climbing from the ground up though, and as I said above, that means the problem's difficulty raises a bar to suitors that top-ropes do not. I really don't see any hypocrisy.

erm..... you watched ben bransby on grit flick?they sell that as a highball.worked on a rope.

[tc]

Many of the routes on natural grit are best classified as highball boulder problems, which is why I like the idea (adopted in the Northumberland bouldering guide) of grading them as such, e.g. Font 7a (H). This also conveniently solves the problem of the Great E-grade Swindle, where tiny climbs are given gigantic grades.

[tallsop]

Well the point only really applies to starting holds.

I can think of plenty of problems that can be started half way up, missing out sit starts, traverses, ive even seen people pushing eachother into position. its not just the starting holds man.

[dr crimp]

Many of the routes on natural grit are best classified as highball boulder problems, which is why I like the idea (adopted in the Northumberland bouldering guide) of grading them as such, e.g. Font 7a (H). This also conveniently solves the problem of the Great E-grade Swindle, where tiny climbs are given gigantic grades.

point taken.but where do you draw the line between soloing and highballing.the line can be only drawn by the individual ,or do we have to call on the nhs to settle this one from there stats.lets be fair they mop up all the misjudgements.

[dave]

Many of the routes on natural grit are best classified as highball boulder problems,

They already are in the current BMC guides.

[dr crimp]

Many of the routes on natural grit are best classified as highball boulder problems,

They already are in the current BMC guides.

do the bmc collaborate with nhs for a concise opinion on how many people get hurt on these highball routes?historically many people don't get massively nailed/seriously injured by bouldering,highball or not.od turned ankle ect.

[tc]

Many of the routes on natural grit are best classified as highball boulder problems,

They already are in the current BMC guides.

Jesus, you know you're getting old when you agree with the BMC!

[Joepicalli]

Brilliant I've bumped into the proxy uk cock thread, I knew it was hiding some where.