[Oldmanmatt]

For those that don't know, there is shortly to be a new indoor Bouldering award scheme.

It will be very similar to the NICAS scheme.

And, I'm deliberately not naming the scheme here.

I've been involved with the trial and I think it's great (better than that). It is very training and sport science oriented, well conceived and written and aimed primarily at under 18's (though open to adults).

I just have one question, for which I have an opinion that I'd like to keep to myself at this point, that I think should have been more widely canvassed.

It is proposed, that at level 4 of the scheme (of 5 levels), there will be a requirement to complete a set number of problems at "V4 and above" (I para-phrase).

Any thoughts on that?

[Durbs]

Sounds interesting.

The main (obvious?) point of contention would be one centre's V4 is another places V3/V5, or even 6a+ for non-V grade venues, which is another potential issue.

There's also thuggy V4's and slabby V4's - so somone could play to their strengths or not, so specifying " number of V4's at a range of angles" might add something.

[lagerstarfish]

of different styles?


I think that expecting young people to be able to work their way through any style of 6A is not unreasonable

[abarro81]

Can you outline what the point/aim of the scheme is? Views will likely depend on what the objective is..

[SA Chris]

Can you outline what the point/aim of the scheme is? Views will likely depend on what the objective is..

+1

[slackline]

To help kids develop a comprehensive range of climbing skills across a range of styles at V4 or above.

[Ti_pin_man]

I think I'd need to see what the other levels are and the premise / aim of the scheme before commenting, its hard without the wider context.

[Dave Flanagan]

Sounds like it might be a lot to ask.

[SEDur]

I think it is also worth considering, that 99% of the time, the setters don't know how hard V4 is.
With the usual 'climbs are so specific, one might smash a V6 roof climb, and constantly fail a tricky V4 slab. Grades are not such a scientifically accurate measure of how hard you can climb'.

If the award is training/sports science related; surely the goal should be to present percentile improvements in performance and related factors.

You will get some kids who blast through to 'V7' and similar, and probably more for climbing lots, than learning how to train effectively. Surely they should have to prove the theory, method, testing and results of their training, in order to prove they have learned and what they are doing is working. Not that they can climb someones 'V4'




But context and all that...

[Oldmanmatt]

Ok.

Nobody picked up on the point that struck me.

I was concerned about "access" for the less able bodied.

Part of the concept was to encourage development of talent, in much the same vein as Athletics or Gymnastics is currently developed and awarded.
Therefore some level of physical attainment was required.

[andyd]

 It is proposed, that at level 4 of the scheme (of 5 levels), there will be a requirement to complete a set number of problems at "V4 and above" (I para-phrase).

Any thoughts on that?

...V grades suck?

[Fultonius]

Ok.

Nobody picked up on the point that struck me.

I was concerned about "access" for the less able bodied.

Part of the concept was to encourage development of talent, in much the same vein as Athletics or Gymnastics is currently developed and awarded.
Therefore some level of physical attainment was required.

I guess that still depends on what the objective of the award scheme is. If it's to show a level of "competence" i.e. being able to safely boulder (knowing when to back down, how to jump off and land, general training principles etc.) and safely spot. Then no, you probably don;t need to "achieve" a level. If the objective is to show a level of skill and competence then "access" doesn't come into it. It certainly doesn't in other sports. You're either good enough, or not. Same in swimming, sailing, skiing etc. etc. Life's tough...

[lagerstarfish]

 It is proposed, that at level 4 of the scheme (of 5 levels), there will be a requirement to complete a set number of problems at "V4 and above" (I para-phrase).

Any thoughts on that?

...V grades suck?

grades?

I thought it referred to the number of cylinders in the engine they can use

[Fultonius]

grades?

I thought it referred to the number of cylinders in the engine they can use

[SEDur]

On the caveat that I am probably about to offend several people;

In the case of access for handy-capable (yes, this is the currently accepted term) people, where is there a problem?
The Deaf, blind and those restricted by access (lame is such an awful term, I think everyone would agree) go and climb things like El-capitan on a semi-regular basis. There is even the famous Scottish climber featured in various films, who goes and solos some really impressive bits (is it the On-site series?), who might be considered handy-capable.

There is a problem with this goal and how it is measured, but not because it restricts access to the handy-capable. More because its a particularly crap target, that doesn't really measure anything. Make the goal improvement specific with a measurable percentile, and anyone can show the necessary improvement, given they put the work in.