[Boredboy]

Putting the climbing wads to one side for the moment, if 2 climbers of a similar ability want to do the same route, say a crimpy and sustained 8a for example. One decides he's going to spend all his time at the crag trying the route starting it April he has 10 sessions and climbs it by the beginning of May. His mate who was the same standard as him in April, can't get to the crag at all in this time, but puts a similar amount of specific effort in on his board at home, turns up to the crag in May on the same day and climbs the route in an afternoon 2hrs 1 warm up 3rd redpoint. Who is the better climber?

[petejh]

Ok its getting a bit ukc - nobody cares about non-newsworthy stuff like your mate and you doing an 8a.

Nemo - I don't disagree but the weakness in the reporting of timescale is: there are no parameters for how the time is recorded. Think about it - what does '3 hours' mean? Does it mean 3 hours from first tie in to send with no stopping of the clock for snacks and a piss? It's even more vague than 'e9'!

[Doylo]

Vickers doing True North in 2 hours in 98  To this day has a Brit climbed one quicker?

[Boredboy]

Ok its getting a bit ukc - nobody cares about non-newsworthy stuff like your mate and you doing an 8a.

Just making a point about training dude WTF is it with the 'ukc' card bullshit

[ardeer]

i think i ll just stick to being amazed at humans climbing 9whatever full stop.

[petejh]

I normally use it as shorthand for something tiresome and ill-informed. Not that I think your post was so apologies if it offended. Just that this <extremely nerdish> thread is about reporting of timescale for hard ascents.

[Boredboy]

No worries, just replace 8a with 9a+, same nerdish point made

[Nemo]

Pete

It's simple and not vague at all.  ANY day where you attempt the route in any way counts as a day (even if it was shite conditions and you gave up after 10 minutes).  If you do it in a day then if you can be arsed saying number of hours, then from the time you pulled off the deck for the first time to the time of successful redpoint.

That's how it's always worked at the top level when people are being honest about stuff and not trying to manipulate things to make them sound more impressive than they actually are. 

Of course, if you're unlucky that can mean that you spend 10 days in log conditions trying something that in good conditions you could have onsighted - but that's always been the deal.  So from a "worst case" perspective, time isn't a very useful indicator.  It's only really useful in a "best case" perspective. - ie: if / when someone does a confirmed 9b in an day then it's massive news.

[petejh]

I agree that 'days' is a useful indicator of talent/performance etc. But you haven't really addressed the issue being got at here - hours. That's what's being reported , not days.

'x-hours' is so vague and open to manipulation (as are 'days', but much less so) as to be laughable as a basis for reporting  - like I said earlier, what are the parameters?

[ducko]

Yeah but what's he climbed at LPT

[petejh]

To illustrate better why using 'hours' for indicating performance is a duff idea, consider the following:

Ian Vickers did True North in '2 hours'. Wow. Ledge.

Tomorrow, 'über Alex' does True North in 1hr.45mins.

So it's a more significant ascent right? Oh hang on, no-one was really timing Ian's '2hrs' - it was just a yardstick made out of a branch from the nearest bush. And no-one knew if Alex's mid-morning break counted as 'time' or not.

Recording hours for ascents is a dead-end means of measuring performance. Difficulty is vague enough but the best we've got, perhaps days are also useful.

(edit) If we measured time at LPT everyone would look shit!

[Muenchener]

Surely we're drifting rather far away from the actual point, which is that somebody who has onsighted 9a, and done 9a+ in a handful of goes, still may or may not be able to climb at the actual current cutting edge of sport climbing which is two grades harder, and we won't know until he tries.

[Grubes]

I'm looking forward to the Shark Sprayathon when the Oak goes as that will really be meaningful. 

I would love to know the hour count (or is it into months) shark has spent on that route.

I have finally done the oak spending 61843 hours tied to the rope

[Jaspersharpe]

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

If I go to Font for a week and have a 7B project but it rains for 4 of the seven days, do I get an 8A tick under Duckworth Lewis if I manage to climb it in the remaining 3?

[Snoops]

Ok its getting a bit ukc

Yep

[lagerstarfish]

has anyone made the crap "witticism" about getting pumped after hanging on for 5 minutes, let alone 90 minutes?

[tomtom]

Allow me.

Blimey! I get pumped rotten after 5 mins of hanging on - how on earth does he do 90! He really must be a wunderkind!

TomTom (vs 4C with a strong updraft).

[lagerstarfish]

should I punter you, or is entrapment a reasonable excuse?

[tomtom]

Entrapment? I thought it was a direct order!

Your power as cult leader is strong esteemed venerable larger than you were scrittle caresser. Send your minions another message via you-tube. We await.

[Moo]

We need a poll on this thread now, preferably with 'those little bottles of french beer' as an option.

[lagerstarfish]

Kronen Piss or Brut 33 ?

[Muenchener]

has anyone made the crap "witticism" about getting pumped after hanging on for 5 minutes, let alone 90 minutes?

I seriously considered it.

I've gaped at the route: it's really, really steep with really, really small holds

[tomtom]

Kronen Piss or Brut 33 ?

Got to be 33 shirley?

[Fiend]

Pelforth Blonde.

[PipeSmoke]

Does it really matter? You can pull the information you find useful from a given article and just not bother yourself with the rest. To be fair its a matter of opinion what people find impressive and useful. The point to what Megos is trying to say is basically he can climb stuff we cant in the length of time if takes you to warm up. No need to get all geek mode