[jwi]

According to Björn on the other channel, Alex Megos needed 1,5 hour to repeat "The man that follows Hell" 9a+ at Grüne Hölle.

[Nibile]

According to Björn on the other channel, Alex Megos needed 1,5 hour to repeat "The man that follows Hell" 9a+ at Grüne Hölle.

Who cares about how long he took?

[jwi]

I do.

[Moo]

Agreed if they didn't onsite or flash it I couldn't give a toss about the "4 goes soft" style write up which seems to be prevalent in the climbing media at the moment.

I'm more interested in knowing that somone took multiple sessions and plenty of attempts to get something done, as this means it must have been genuinely hard for them.

[cowboyhat]

Agreed if they didn't onsite or flash it I couldn't give a toss about the "4 goes soft" style write up which seems to be prevalent in the climbing media at the moment.

I'm more interested in knowing that somone took multiple sessions and plenty of attempts to get something done, as this means it must have been genuinely hard for them.

YEAH ALEX you lazy scamp; stop fuckin about get on DURA DURA!

[Jaspersharpe]

I think it's worth reporting. An hour and a half to climb 9a+ is impressive even considering he's onsighted 9a.

[Moo]

I'm not saying that it isn't impressive I'm just saying that I don't think journalists need to start the stop watch after the first attempt. Unless of course we want to build a record for jens to grade things from his ivory elctro tower with his time grading argument.

[Boredboy]

Why is it important how many sessions / goes etc a route took? There's gotta be lots of reasons why a person might climb something quickly or not e.g. the fact that someone's been training hard for 10 years and could one finger campus and had a replica built in their cellar before trying action direct, probably means they're going to climb it a bit quicker. It's like saying how many sessions did Bolt take to break the 100m world record.

[shark]

I think it's worth reporting. An hour and a half to climb 9a+ is impressive even considering he's onsighted 9a.

+1

It gives context - doing it that quickly suggests that he may be capable of 9a+ onsight 

There, I said it

[jwi]

9a+ in a short session means that he could potentially onsight 9a! Ehh... wait a minute....

[jwi]

Simulposting....

[miso soup]

According to Björn on the other channel, Alex Megos needed 1,5 hour to repeat "The man that follows Hell" 9a+ at Grüne Hölle.

Who cares about how long he took?

In a fucking day???
 

[Jaspersharpe]

I get the point re spraying about how quickly you did something and agree with Nibs blog post on this.

However, when it comes down to the cutting edge, which is currently Ondra and Megos, it's worthwhile information.

Two different things.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[Sasquatch]

Nobody knows what 2 tries means anyway.  Is that a flash, then pulled the rope and did it next go?  Or was that a 2 hour beta fest working and reworking every sequence, then a rest day and then doing it next go.  Do you counting working efforts as "tries"? 

I do like the timeframe better as that seems to be a bit more objective, but even that doesn't tell the whole story.  Did you have someone there who could give you all the beta or did you have to figure it out yourself? 

Finally, I love to spray when I do something really meaningful to me.  I think we should take pride in it.  Spray away.  I'm looking forward to the Shark Sprayathon when the Oak goes as that will really be meaningful.  I struggle to understand how a 9a in 1.5hrs is really meaningful to Megos?

[Sasquatch]

I struggle to understand how a 9a in 1.5hrs is really meaningful to Megos?

9a+! 

I'm sure he feels pretty good, but was it really meaningful? From the sounds of things, he had thought alot obout AD, so to go out and actually get on it finally was pretty meaningful, as I'm sure it would for anyone capable, simply due to the history.  And to then knock it out in a day is pretty   

Dammit-Ondra has skewed everything so far out of order, the world is just wrong.  I think of him and Ondra as on par.  I guess it's easy for me to forget he actually hasn't done that much harder stuff despite OSing a 9a.  Has he done any 9b's yet?   I'm sure he's capable, but has he actually done any?

[Muenchener]

I struggle to understand how a 9a in 1.5hrs is really meaningful to Megos?

9a+! 

One of the top 3 hardest routes in his local area, third ascent (I think), and a pretty excellent looking line. Would be meaningful to me

Still, clearly at some point he should get on something he actually finds hard.

[Fiend]

9a+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SA Chris]

Finally, I love to spray when I do something really meaningful to me.  I think we should take pride in it.  Spray away.  I'm looking forward to the Shark Sprayathon when the Oak goes as that will really be meaningful. 

If he was serious he would have replaced Ali G with Arnie long ago, as motivation. But he's still dining out on former triumphs

[Nibile]

According to Björn on the other channel, Alex Megos needed 1,5 hour to repeat "The man that follows Hell" 9a+ at Grüne Hölle.

Who cares about how long he took?

In a fucking day???
 

I knew that someone was going to quote that post. I will try to be more precise. Mods, feel free to split/log.
In my opinion, some things are newsworthy, others are not. "In a day" has always been a benchmark for special ascents, for various reasons. But now we are down to "in x hours", and in bouldering to "in x minutes". But in the end, all those who have climbed AD, have just only climbed the same AD.
I marveled at the quick ascent because of the nature of the route, how tricky the dyno is, how difficult the conditions, how dangerous for injuries, etc. But I don't care about hours, because it introduces an external factor that, by some people, is used to build a classification on same climbs.
Who is stronger? A guy who climbs the route in two hours and ten tries, or the guy who climbs it in five sessions and five tries?
After the AD thing, now every ascent by Megos is reported with hours. Who takes the clock? When do you start it? Do lunch breaks count? In bouldering it's been common practice for years now.
So, while certain special days are newsworthy (Megos on AD, Robinson on The Ace, Ondra on E7's and Hubble and so on), going down to hours and minutes to me is useless, especially when done for every route or boulder problem.
The fact that makes this practice so annoying to me, as I've said, is that - to me - it's used to imply that the quickest is the strongest. It is not necessarily the case. How can I tell? Because otherwise what is the meaning of reporting the time? Climbing is not a time discipline. The aim is the top. So all the climbers who got to the top, are even on that route or problem, there's not one who is stronger on that same route.
As I tried to say in the blog, I think that we don't need to make climbing with more rules or parameters just to give 8a.nu a better defined ranking.
I find Megos case particularly annoying because it seems to me that he's been highly mediatically pushed by his coaches, publishers of the training book (is it a case that it was released just after his 9a onsight?) and so on.
Am I a cynical bastard? Yes I am.
Sincerely, I see no contradiction between marveling at a special "in a day" ascent and refusing to bring down every ascent in terms of hours and minutes.

[slackline]

Although "In x hours and y minutes" is only a subset of the larger "in a day" so it is just as impressive.

It seems to me that its the reportage that is the bone of contention.

[petejh]

Nail on the head Nibble. It's a media construction. Grades are for difficulty, watches are for telling the time. Sure it's interesting in a sideshow kind of way how long something relatively hard took someone, but not as the central point. The obvious implication being put out is: if 9a in x time then grade y (i.e. 9b+) in z time. But the reality is climb 9b+, or don't - being a contender means nothing without execution. There's an interesting article to be written about it, perhaps it could be part of a larger debate about what's actually significant versus what's portrayed as significant.

[ardeer]

it seems preeeetty daft to refer to hours and minutes, how many actual attempts is more interesting to me, i mean was someone timing from the second he first pulled on to top out, were rest included or not etc?

[Nemo]

Can't agree I'm afraid.

Beyond just having climbed something, time is by far the most useful indicator as to how impressive an ascent is.  It's not a media construction.  The difference between having climbed something in 60 days spread over 3 years and doing something in a day is enormous.  A typical spectrum is something like 8b+ after a siege, 8a+ in a day and 7c+ onsight.  ie: doing an 8a+ in a day is as big a deal as redpointing an 8b+ after a siege.  I can still remember being blown away by Vickers doing True North in 2 hours.  If it had just been reported that he'd redpointed it, it wouldn't have been a big deal at all.

Of course that doesn't mean that you can grade something based on how long someone took (as Jens seems to want to).  If Chris Sharma has flu, he's recovering from shoulder surgery, he's wearing a weight belt, it's 50 degrees C and it's raining, then he could spend 7 days failing to climb a Font 7A. 

But when averaged over a number of ascents (especially with different types of climbers, climbing in different conditions) then the time taken is as good an indicator as you're going to get as to how hard something is.  ie: if a whole pile of people with very different body shapes climb a "Font 8C" in different conditions in an hour, then it probably isn't Font 8C...

So I'm with jwi on this - if the media just reported either that someone had just done something (without qualifying it) or that the ascent was made in such and such an amount of time, that would be useful.  (That said, it doesn't need to be detailed down to the exact minute - just no of days or perhaps hours if done in 1 day.)

What is total BS, is the whole "number of tries" nonsense.  That is often just a way of people manipulating a not particularly impressive ascent to impress the clueless / sponsors.  Often "5 try" ascents turn out after further questioning to be 4 full day working sessions, with 2 days off in between each session.  Followed by a weeks rest, followed by a successful redpoint.  If the media just ignored anyone saying they had done an ascent in x tries that would actually be useful.  Otherwise, I won't be at all surprised when some clown sets up a portaledge 1 foot off the ground on La Rambla.  Spends a month working it, without setting foot on the ground.  Then takes a weeks rest and redpoints it "second try"...

In short, give time for really newsworthy ascents.  And stop reporting the "x tries" drivel - that really would be a massive step forward in terms of honestly reporting stuff.

[kelvin]

If you count attempts... then what defines an attempt. Nibs is right here. You either climb it or you don't. Everything else has to be irrelevant as there are far too many variables.

Maybe the media is still trying to push speed climbing, forgetting it didn't get into the Olympics   

[lagerstarfish]

I think it's interesting

it's a bit like cricket scores, but with only one side playing; and that being a team of one