[Fiend]

Another topic that has been weighing heavily on my poor addled brain. I think it might be useful to have some sort of definitive threads on their merits, reasoning, and general principles (possibly to stop anything like COTEC happening again).

Referring back:

Controversial opinion on a bouldering forum but all the best problems I've ever done have been stand starts. Where the sit adds good moves and there is an obvious hold to start off I'm all in favour, but its not uncommon for the the pull-on point to be unobvious or pad stack dependent which without exception makes for a shit problem in my view...

Some heartwarmingly spot on posts in the last several. Just cos bouldering is scrittling around on pebbles doesn't mean it should ignore quality, line, purpose, natural lines, aesthetics etc.

I'm remembering the introduction to North Wales Bouldering 1 in which the guru Pantontino is espousing the virtues of modern bouldering as entirely valid climbing in it's own right, and in particular how some of the better lines in, say, The Pass have a purpose, aesthetic, quality, history and importance that is just as worthy as those on The Cromlech above. I always rather liked that as it seemed to partly imply a benchmark of real quality that would nullify any potential sneering from trad onlookers about "farting around on little rocks". This is pretty much evident on all (non-limestone?) venues in the UK, the king lines on grit and sandstone and dolerite are just as king as their trad ancestors, just somewhat shorter.

I feel this concept should still apply in the modern era of sit starts, eliminates, get-the-number, record-everything. Sit starts are one of the most particular, peculiar and specific to bouldering concepts - as distant as it gets from the original aesthetics of climbing. Nothing wrong with that, but equally they can either detract from the validity of bouldering in their arbitrariness, or enhance that validity with their aesthetics and purpose.

Obvious and natural sit-starts with obvious and natural holds (or crouching if that's what those holds dictate), where you're pulling on relatively easily to then initiate challenging movement should be lauded - and indeed there are many great and classic examples.

Arbitrary sit-starts where you're pulling on mid-sequence, or where your feet are further out from the rock than your hands, or where the crux is pulling your arse off the ground, or where they're disproportionately hard and unbalance a problem should perhaps be consigned to a footnote at most.

Discuss...

[petejh]

So Parisellas and other cave venues should self-isolate from your vision of climbing, as even the stand-starts are arbitrary.

[Fiend]

I honestly don't know enough about those areas but I'm assuming at some points in the rock there are holds which are distinctly bigger than others and positions that are naturally easier to pull on than others.

[spidermonkey09]

So Parisellas and other cave venues should self-isolate from your vision of climbing, as even the stand-starts are arbitrary.

My takeaway is that although the Parisellas/ Raven Tor concept of bouldering as an (often eliminate) search for pure difficulty is great in its own way, bouldering as a pursuit is lessened when the principles of Parisellas/Tor are applied to crags where they are fundamentally unsuited. The result is shit sit starts and stupid eliminates, crucially where logical stand/crouch starts and strong lines exist.

[yetix]

Parisella's has relatively few eliminates, just lots of lines fairly close to one and other really, a slight line deviation would send you into a new problem, but there aren't assigned holds on most things and those that there are Id say are rarely done. Can't comment the Tor.

But really there are only like 4 lines in the cave. Pilgrimage, In Hell into Bonnie/Clyde, Dorsal Stream. Everything else is just a training link for those right?

[HarryBD]

Often the better bouldering lines are better than their trad brothers and sisters - they aren't disrupted by other rock features interrupting the purity of the line - scoops, aretes, flakes, cracks and blank slabs are more often the entirety of the climb on boulders than on taller rocks. The micro to the macro of clear mountaineering lines.

Sit starts are shit because I'm tall so get scrunched up and it disadvantages me and hurts my ego.

Where the rock feature of the problem dictates a sit start (or at least heavily suggests it) I'll accept it but I'm personally not motivated by the seeking out of difficulty for difficulty's sake.

[dunnyg]

Nah, the best trad lines are at least equal to the best bouldering lines. Devil's slide, cenotaph corner, (almost everything) at indian creek, clingen... Plus so many mental looking alpine ridge lines, the mahoosive chimney lines in the dolomites. etc. etc.

[Yoof]

Think you might've taken COTEC a bit too seriously Fiend It was a close-to-the-ground bit of fun while I recover from spine problems--figured others might want to do it too as the moves weren't total shite and grit awkwardness is cool right now  .

My personal take on shit starts/eliminates is that if you don't like a problem, don't do it, and just don't point it out to other people. Shake your head at people who do them if you must. Frequency of repeats  (accounting for difficulty, accessibility, and the effects of social media/"It's a Johnny Dawes problem and I think he's great" hype) is surely real the mark of a good vs a bad problem.

Hatch-Bonnie >>> In Hell-Bonnie!!!

[tomtom]

THIS (below) is all about the sit start.

https://youtu.be/HWdcpJPEi6U?t=47

[Banana finger]

I guess generally the most important thing is "which are the starting holds"...Perhaps guides should mark these on problems where its worth it.

The whole concept of stacking 3 pads to get your arse on the floor seems daft. If your arse happens to be on the floor while holding the starting holds then thats a sitting start i guess.

Some may argue a forced sitting start ensures you start "in-control" rather than using the momentum of pulling on to do the first move (....the campus joker ;=) ). But generally doing some awkward pelvic thrust to get your bum off the floor never adds quality (IMHO)!...We all know in our heart of hearts if we started properly / matched the finish hold properly (i.e. slapping the back of your hand as you fall off the rock atrocity slot)

[Fiend]

Definitely nothing personal / specific Yoof, which is why I've started a separate thread. Sure COTEC-19 inspired it but there's many other examples throughout the aeons so it's just about the general principles (I actually had a moan about All Quiet Direct SS decades ago, it may or not be a good problem but the idea of a sit start to a classic highball slabby rib just seemed wrong).

[HarryBD]

Nah, the best trad lines are at least equal to the best bouldering lines. Devil's slide, cenotaph corner, (almost everything) at indian creek, clingen... Plus so many mental looking alpine ridge lines, the mahoosive chimney lines in the dolomites. etc. etc.

Clingen at Woodhouse?

Agreed on those routes - once the feature is big enough you can't see the miniature features crossing it. Single pitch trad routes more often have something or other that takes you away from the integral line of that piece of rock or the feature won't be the entire length of the route. I'd argue that there's more aesthetics in boulders and massive mountain/seacliff lines than the outcrop climbing in-between.

[mark20]

bouldering as a pursuit is lessened when the principles of Parisellas/Tor are applied to crags where they are fundamentally unsuited. The result is shit sit starts and stupid eliminates, crucially where logical stand/crouch starts and strong lines exist.

Agree with this. The North Yorkshire Moors bouldering guide really suffers from this, typically 3 or 4 problems crammed on a block that has 2 lines 

[SA Chris]

Agreed on those routes - once the feature is big enough you can't see the miniature features crossing it. Single pitch trad routes more often have something or other that takes you away from the integral line of that piece of rock or the feature won't be the entire length of the route. I'd argue that there's more aesthetics in boulders and massive mountain/seacliff lines than the outcrop climbing in-between.

I'd put to you that's bollocks. Many one pitch trad routes follow a single line of weakness.

[Camo]

Took me a while to like sit starts but some are ok. Generally I don’t like arse dragging problems that are low and prefer a decent looking line. To use an example from near me badger attack at Carrock is a sit start, low to the ground and generally a bit of a crap problem but Sing a rainbow is a great problem with a much nicer line, starts from sit and has a decent set of moves.

For a sit to be worth doing I think it has to add quality moves and not just difficulty in the form of a shitty contorted effort to get your backside off the ground

[sxrxg]

We all know in our heart of hearts if we started properly / matched the finish hold properly (i.e. slapping the back of your hand as you fall off the rock atrocity slot)

I wish you hadn't mentioned this... I did this on Rock Atrocity back in 2011 and still haven't had the psyche to go back and get it done (probably couldn't now with being a fat old dad who only gets up hard stuff with cunning!)

[Fiend]

Nah, the best trad lines are at least equal to the best bouldering lines. Devil's slide, cenotaph corner, (almost everything) at indian creek, clingen... Plus so many mental looking alpine ridge lines, the mahoosive chimney lines in the dolomites. etc. etc.

Clingen at Woodhouse?

I'm glad someone has already mentioned Clingen as a benchmark of quality so I don't have to. If Clingen was a boulder problem it *would* be a sit-start, and a really cool obvious one.

[spidermonkey09]

Good example of an excellent sit start is King of Drunks at Wavelength. Obvious rail, good moves into the stand.

Bad example: the 7A one mover sit to the 4+ arete on the slabby block just below Gorilla Warfare. An abomination.

[nai]

Bad example: the 7A one mover sit to the 4+ arete on the slabby block just below Gorilla Warfare. An abomination.

Can't you do it 

Frustrating and seeking difficulty but not that bad.  The real abomination is folk who might seige it or go after it as their first of the grade rather than treat it as the gap filler that it is.  Obviously should call it 6C+ and that'd stop that.

If you're looking for abominations, amongst all that rock in Font, amongst all those proud lines with lovely subltle movement, there's this, a lie down start and chest height finish, and people do it while they're on holiday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb8yJuMmLvM&feature=youtu.be

[spidermonkey09]

I've never even tried it! 

That example in Font is pretty dire...I like the old VB guide talking about the sit start to Pebble Arete: "really, have you nothing better to do?"

[sdm]

If you're looking for abominations, amongst all that rock in Font, amongst all those proud lines with lovely subltle movement, there's this, a lie down start and chest height finish, and people do it while they're on holiday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb8yJuMmLvM&feature=youtu.be

Or Sphincters Toniques 7A+, the dusty lie down start to L'Obliques 7A at Sabots.

https://bleau.info/sabots/1058.html

I gave it one attempt while waiting for a mate to finish off L'Obliques. It looked crap but I didn't think Montchausée would have wasted his time on it unless it climbed a lot better than it looked. It made me briefly question what I was doing with my life before I moved on to one of the countless great climbs there.

[sdm]

Bad example: the 7A one mover sit to the 4+ arete on the slabby block just below Gorilla Warfare. An abomination.

Can't you do it 

Frustrating and seeking difficulty but not that bad.  The real abomination is folk who might seige it or go after it as their first of the grade rather than treat it as the gap filler that it is.  Obviously should call it 6C+ and that'd stop that.

I was guilty of that, putting in 2 sessions on it back when 7A seemed like a distant dream. "It's only one move and then you're in to a 4+, how hard can it be!?!". We didn't really understand grade maths...

Never did go back to do it.

[GazM]

To me, as with almost everyone else it would seem, it's far more pleasing to start from the logical lowest holds regardless of whether they're at sitting, crouching or standing height.

You could make an argument that grim sit starts attempt to squeeze every last drop of movement out of a bit of rock, so the smaller the rock perhaps the more sense they make.

Ultimately I'd refer back to the thread the other day about finding meaning in climbing. It's utterly inconsequential to anyone but yourself where a problem starts, so it's all down to your own enjoyment and personal view on the aesthetics.

[nai]

I've never even tried it! 

I like the old VB guide talking about the sit start to Pebble Arete: "really, have you nothing better to do?"

Done them both twice 

If you do try Dan's don't try to get your heel in the obvious hold, that just complicates things, scum it on the lip lower down, works much more betterer.

[andy popp]

Nah, the best trad lines are at least equal to the best bouldering lines. Devil's slide, cenotaph corner, (almost everything) at indian creek, clingen... Plus so many mental looking alpine ridge lines, the mahoosive chimney lines in the dolomites. etc. etc.

Clingen at Woodhouse?

Agreed on those routes - once the feature is big enough you can't see the miniature features crossing it. Single pitch trad routes more often have something or other that takes you away from the integral line of that piece of rock or the feature won't be the entire length of the route. I'd argue that there's more aesthetics in boulders and massive mountain/seacliff lines than the outcrop climbing in-between.

A great line does not always make for a great route. The Devil's Slide is an amazing piece of rock and the climbing is fun, but I remember it being pretty escapable. I like subtle lines, linking features, often the easiest way up a stretch of rock, something like Nexus on Dinas Mot.