IMO, I think the logical thing should have been to take the line as high up as it can go (25-30m). Being the first ascensionist and having that climbing ability, it seems a missed opportunity to make Brandenburg Gate a longer/better and possibly more sustained route.
You what? He's just climbed a 2m bit of rock....Doesn't it go higher?
Wouldn't you just go up to the next blob?He's so low they could have passed his sandwiches up to him.I'm annoyed that you made me watch that.
I've just shown the footage to Daisy and the verdict is as follows:QuoteYou what? He's just climbed a 2m bit of rock....Doesn't it go higher?After I showed her the topo and explained about Mecca Extension etc:QuoteWouldn't you just go up to the next blob?He's so low they could have passed his sandwiches up to him.I'm annoyed that you made me watch that.I love this woman.
Re: lack of strength gains since the 90's. Were people 1 arming edges with 20-30kg in their other hand back then?edit: it seems they all concentrate a lot more on mobility these days too, especially the comp climbers.
I saw an interview with Alex Huber, who did a very early 9a+ thanks to singular focus on training and should be in a good position to know, that no one of today's cohort comes even close to Wolfgang Güllich in terms of raw strength. Maybe it is self-serving mythologising, but I do not get that impression.
that no one of today's cohort comes even close to Wolfgang Güllich in terms of raw strength.
Quote from: jwi on November 08, 2021, 03:01:50 pmthat no one of today's cohort comes even close to Wolfgang Güllich in terms of raw strength. I find that hard to believe. Maybe they haven't got much/any stronger, but why in spite of ever improving training knowledge would everyone have failed to get close?
Without some actual numbers I'd be very skeptical. It's just way too easy to look back at these things with rose tinted glasses (Im as guilty of this as anyone).
it wouldn't make it any better, it would only make it longer. They aren't the same thing.
Quote from: gme on November 08, 2021, 11:45:37 amAnd its nothing to do with technique, climbers are way stronger than the top boys were in the 90s. Much much stronger.I assume you're being deliberately hyperbolic. It's obviously not an either/or. Both have increased and neither has an agreed on means of measuring relative advancement. So to a great extent it's a matter of opinion which type of improvement you see as being more instrumental in grade advancements. You've obviously pinned your colours to the strength mast to the exclusion of technique being a relevant factor. Having climbed with lots of people way better and way stronger than me for decades I've seen significant gains in both general technique and strength. And I do think yesterday's climbers would have achieved more with a little better technique than today's climbers would with a little extra strength.
And its nothing to do with technique, climbers are way stronger than the top boys were in the 90s. Much much stronger.
Quote from: Liamhutch89 on November 08, 2021, 11:26:30 amRe: lack of strength gains since the 90's. Were people 1 arming edges with 20-30kg in their other hand back then?edit: it seems they all concentrate a lot more on mobility these days too, especially the comp climbers.I saw an interview with Alex Huber, who did a very early 9a+ thanks to singular focus on training and should be in a good position to know, that no one of today's cohort comes even close to Wolfgang Güllich in terms of raw strength. Maybe it is self-serving mythologising, but I do not get that impression.
Rose tinted specs. Todays wads are another notch up. Megos did AD in how many goes? The sport is a little more mature now though so the gaps dont look as big on paper.
Other than the new school heels, knees and compression....
Megos is a lot better climber than Güllich ever was. Look at any video of Wolfgang climbing if you have doubts. Stronger? I am far from convinced.
My point in the other thread is that you can't afford to be lacking in either nowadays. I think in the 90s particularly advances in technique lagged behind advances in strength somewhat, which is totally understandable given the types of training that had just been developed. There were brilliant technicians but they arguably tended to not also be the very strongest climbers. Now the top climbers are undoubtedly both.QuoteOther than the new school heels, knees and compression.... I mean, can you really argue that yesterday's best were technically brilliant without having mastered these skills which are by modern standards fairly basic and not considered new school by anyone under 30. I see new school technical brilliance as more about speed, accuracy, coordination, and a total grasp of the full range of climbing skills on all angles.
Quote from: jwi on November 08, 2021, 04:15:06 pmMegos is a lot better climber than Güllich ever was. Look at any video of Wolfgang climbing if you have doubts. Stronger? I am far from convinced.Im sure Megos is pretty technically good, but AD took him 2 hours whereas it took Wolfgang 11 days. Maybe Wolfgang was stronger in some very particular ways, but I really struggle to think of him as a stronger climber overall.
Quote from: spidermonkey09 on November 08, 2021, 02:36:00 pmit wouldn't make it any better, it would only make it longer. They aren't the same thing. IMO the best routes always start at the bottom and go to the top. Occasional exceptions exist for rock quality, vegetation etc. At least this one is at the tor, so it was never going to be one of the best anyway! Obvious finish from the Mecca chains would be up Hajj, which while relatively easy for Will, would still be dropable (I guess comparable to doing a short 8b to a big jug then having a 7c+ headwall to put on top - you shouldn't drop it, and it maybe doesn't change the grade, but it still adds spice)