[SA Chris]

You know it only exists if you can add it to your UKC logbook. I get mates who I have shown new stuff who have asked if I am going go put them on UKC, as they want to add them to their logbooks. They always seem a bit disappointed when i tell them i was banned about 8 years ago, and never rejoined.

[jwi]

Given that absolutely everyone feels that they are competent to express their opinion about the grade on every single thing they climb like small obedient little Larsenettes, everyone should at least try to figure out if they actually climbed the thing.

Example: I was belaying on the right end of Grande Grotta in Kalymnos and overheard the team next to us talking about how the route Tufantastic was a good first 7b+. I was a bit surprised as while it is not exactly Blocage-Violent hard I did not find it 7a+ either. The last guy to try it in their group went up their draws on the 7a to its right that shares its start. As I saw this I inquired if he wanted to climb Tufantastic, and as that was the case I tried to convince him that he should maybe climb a few metre to the left up the actual route. They were however adamant that they were on the right route. I tried to convince them that I had actually climbed the route and that they were on a completely different bolt line. I quite quickly gave up as they double checked in the guidebook and convinced themselves that they had climbed Tufantastic. Very soft for 7b+ apparently.

If, in a group of three climbers, not one of them can tell the difference between 7a and 7b+ (they were not exactly cruising) I am not surprised that people can start one move higher and convince themselves that they done the real problem either.

[finbarrr]

The older i get the more i realise that unless the problem is cutting edge and someone is earning a living from claiming to have climbed something then does it really matter if we sit start something correctly? Everyone’s experience of a problem will be different any way with conditions on the day and other variables. I know that i have sacked off some sit starts as they have felt arbitrary to me even though that is the acknowledged line, in other cases i have been very strict with myself as i understand that the fun of the problem in question is the initial pull.

Usually if claiming a grade for something (not that anyone else generally cares with font 6's and 7's) we know in our heart if it feels the correct grade. If it feels too easy and your feet are using a plinth then stop using the plinth! At the end of the day we are climbing arbitrary bits of rock in the woods or out on the moors and mountains for fun, if it makes it more fun for you stacking pads then go for it (I have the same view of all other tactics as well provided that the rock is not damaged in any way and the next climber can chose their own path). At the end of the day the only person that you are cheating by claiming a higher grade is yourself as nobody else really cares.

As an anecdote some other people seem to get really wound up with this view of climbing, I have occasionally worked problems with others where the line is from a sit start and then whilst working the problem done all the moves from a couple of moves in (obvious starting hold in a roof) decided that i didn't want to do the full line (as the awkward start moves detracted from the rest of the problem for me) started packing up only to be lectured that i hadn't done the line and should just have a rest and get it done as 'you can easily do it next go from the start'. I think some people forget that a day out climbing is meant to be fun and challenging however the boundaries of this game are set between us and the rock alone. As an aside to this I still find it amusing when people ask me ‘what was that you just climbed’ and them being surprised when the response is I have no idea, it is like if the problem doesn’t exist in the pages of a guidebook then it isn’t a legitimate bit of rock to try and climb!

I completely agree.
It’s great to climb for yourself, and climb what you enjoy.
But I do get annoyed when people post video of them doing an incomplete or dabbing ascent

[abarro81]

Usually if claiming a grade for something we know in our heart if it feels the correct grade. If it feels too easy and your feet are using a plinth then stop using the plinth!

I sometimes don't find this true when bouldering actually... e.g. I find the gap between an easy 7A that fits and a hard 7A that doesn't can be from something feeling like 6C to something feeling like 7B, which can easily be as big as the gap between something being "in" or "out".. so it's not always possible to tell on "feel" whether something should be in or out. I've certainly had it before, and sometimes climbed things both ways wondering whether it's nails for grade X or piss for grade X with both feeling equally viable.

[scragrock]

The older i get the more i realise that unless the problem is cutting edge and someone is earning a living from claiming to have climbed something then does it really matter if we sit start something correctly? Everyone’s experience of a problem will be different any way with conditions on the day and other variables. I know that i have sacked off some sit starts as they have felt arbitrary to me even though that is the acknowledged line, in other cases i have been very strict with myself as i understand that the fun of the problem in question is the initial pull.

Usually if claiming a grade for something (not that anyone else generally cares with font 6's and 7's) we know in our heart if it feels the correct grade. If it feels too easy and your feet are using a plinth then stop using the plinth! At the end of the day we are climbing arbitrary bits of rock in the woods or out on the moors and mountains for fun, if it makes it more fun for you stacking pads then go for it (I have the same view of all other tactics as well provided that the rock is not damaged in any way and the next climber can chose their own path). At the end of the day the only person that you are cheating by claiming a higher grade is yourself as nobody else really cares.

As an anecdote some other people seem to get really wound up with this view of climbing, I have occasionally worked problems with others where the line is from a sit start and then whilst working the problem done all the moves from a couple of moves in (obvious starting hold in a roof) decided that i didn't want to do the full line (as the awkward start moves detracted from the rest of the problem for me) started packing up only to be lectured that i hadn't done the line and should just have a rest and get it done as 'you can easily do it next go from the start'. I think some people forget that a day out climbing is meant to be fun and challenging however the boundaries of this game are set between us and the rock alone. As an aside to this I still find it amusing when people ask me ‘what was that you just climbed’ and them being surprised when the response is I have no idea, it is like if the problem doesn’t exist in the pages of a guidebook then it isn’t a legitimate bit of rock to try and climb!

Well said Sir

[Bonjoy]

The older i get the more i realise that unless the problem is cutting edge and someone is earning a living from claiming to have climbed something then does it really matter if we sit start something correctly? Everyone’s experience of a problem will be different any way with conditions on the day and other variables. I know that i have sacked off some sit starts as they have felt arbitrary to me even though that is the acknowledged line, in other cases i have been very strict with myself as i understand that the fun of the problem in question is the initial pull.

Usually if claiming a grade for something (not that anyone else generally cares with font 6's and 7's) we know in our heart if it feels the correct grade. If it feels too easy and your feet are using a plinth then stop using the plinth! At the end of the day we are climbing arbitrary bits of rock in the woods or out on the moors and mountains for fun, if it makes it more fun for you stacking pads then go for it (I have the same view of all other tactics as well provided that the rock is not damaged in any way and the next climber can chose their own path). At the end of the day the only person that you are cheating by claiming a higher grade is yourself as nobody else really cares.

As an anecdote some other people seem to get really wound up with this view of climbing, I have occasionally worked problems with others where the line is from a sit start and then whilst working the problem done all the moves from a couple of moves in (obvious starting hold in a roof) decided that i didn't want to do the full line (as the awkward start moves detracted from the rest of the problem for me) started packing up only to be lectured that i hadn't done the line and should just have a rest and get it done as 'you can easily do it next go from the start'. I think some people forget that a day out climbing is meant to be fun and challenging however the boundaries of this game are set between us and the rock alone. As an aside to this I still find it amusing when people ask me ‘what was that you just climbed’ and them being surprised when the response is I have no idea, it is like if the problem doesn’t exist in the pages of a guidebook then it isn’t a legitimate bit of rock to try and climb!

This is all very true, but also another example of something that gets said in discussions like this, which is totally beside the point and tends to derail attempts to get to the point.
Everyone with a brain should know that you can climb the rock any way you like. Including any section of any boulder or route, with or without dabs, with or without extra pads, or power-spot. And so long as you’re honest and having fun then it’s all gravy.
All of which says nothing about what are sensible conventions for the description of sit starts.
The point of (an admittedly geeky and pedantic) discussion like this is to agree what the thing we call a sit start is. So that grades make as much sense as possible, for as many climbers as possible. Which I think is a reasonable goal, if perhaps ultimately unachievable.

[Paul B]

I sometimes don't find this true when bouldering actually... e.g. I find the gap between an easy 7A that fits and a hard 7A that doesn't can be from something feeling like 6C to something feeling like 7B, which can easily be as big as the gap between something being "in" or "out"..

What you're feeling here Barros is your ability to span past the crux.

[Bradders]

The older i get the more i realise that unless the problem is cutting edge and someone is earning a living from claiming to have climbed something then does it really matter if we sit start something correctly?

For the purposes of piss-taking etc. yes absolutely it matters! Same for dabbing.

[sxrxg]

The older i get the more i realise that unless the problem is cutting edge and someone is earning a living from claiming to have climbed something then does it really matter if we sit start something correctly?

For the purposes of piss-taking etc. yes absolutely it matters! Same for dabbing.

On this I concede you have a point.

[andy moles]

As an anecdote some other people seem to get really wound up with this view of climbing, I have occasionally worked problems with others where the line is from a sit start and then whilst working the problem done all the moves from a couple of moves in (obvious starting hold in a roof) decided that i didn't want to do the full line (as the awkward start moves detracted from the rest of the problem for me) started packing up only to be lectured that i hadn't done the line and should just have a rest and get it done as 'you can easily do it next go from the start'. I think some people forget that a day out climbing is meant to be fun and challenging however the boundaries of this game are set between us and the rock alone. As an aside to this I still find it amusing when people ask me ‘what was that you just climbed’ and them being surprised when the response is I have no idea, it is like if the problem doesn’t exist in the pages of a guidebook then it isn’t a legitimate bit of rock to try and climb!

I was once two moves in to a problem called Moria at Rhiw Goch, and trying quite hard, when a guy hastened over, clearly concerned that my efforts were for naught, to tell me I had started on the wrong holds.

This was a bit distracting, so I let go and started again, using the prescribed holds. I did the problem straight away, because it was significantly easier than what I'd been doing.

[GazM]

The older i get...

This is an entirely laudable position to have for your personal climbing, but where does this leave the idea of guidebooks, names and grades? Surely for problem X to be written up and attempted by others there needs to be some sort of agreement on what problem X is.

[sxrxg]

The older i get...

This is an entirely laudable position to have for your personal climbing, but where does this leave the idea of guidebooks, names and grades? Surely for problem X to be written up and attempted by others there needs to be some sort of agreement on what problem X is.

I think the point is that it should be accepted that it is a guidebook. The critical part of that being 'guide'. It does not have to be definitive or even correct 100% of the time. If we accept what is written up is graded by the first ascentionist based upon the described rules. We can then use this to direct us towards bits of rock that we think might bring us enjoyment based upon our requirements for the day (easy day circuiting or a project). In reality all the guidebook allows is for time poor people such as myself to avoid having to spend time searching out crags and problems that we might gain enjoyment from climbing.

[Moo]

The guidebook doesn't have to be correct ? thank goodness because the one I've just written for aid climbing in Sardinia would have been a right pain to fact check. This is especially true as I've never aid climbed or been to Sardinia.

[sxrxg]

As in if the first ascentionist thinks something is 7a and it is 7b not a massive deal. Same if it actually turns out to be 6c. In reality most problems seem to be within one full number grade as most developers are very experienced. Even if I come across the odd problem that is even more incorrect than this it probably isn't going to ruin my day out. Tbh in guidebooks it is of more importance for me to have decent directions to find the blocs to have a good day out than it is to have grades that are super accurate.

[Bonjoy]

Again, I have to agree, but suggest that it's beside the point. Just because guidebooks are inherently less than perfectly accurate, and just because grade inaccuracy is a tolerable annoyance, doesn't mean efforts to be as accurate as possible shouldn't be pursued.

[Bradders]

The older i get the more i realise that unless the problem is cutting edge and someone is earning a living from claiming to have climbed something then does it really matter if we sit start something correctly?

For the purposes of piss-taking etc. yes absolutely it matters! Same for dabbing.

On this I concede you have a point.

On a more serious note, whilst just going climbing and having a nice time doing whatever you like is entirely laudable, there are plenty of people who enjoy climbing things and then logging or recording them in some way.

The problem arises when one of those people logs something they have demonstrably not done to the same standard as everyone else; even more so when they then post a YouTube video and an Instagram post complete with #greentickwankery. Surely it's easy to see why that sort of thing will inevitably get other people's backs up?

[mrjonathanr]

I think some people forget that a day out climbing is meant to be fun and challenging however the boundaries of this game are set between us and the rock alone.

This, exactly. However, that does change somewhat if a person goes on to publicise and misrepresent what they have done, as it is no longer between the climber and the rock, but includes everyone else.

[Fiend]

I think people's opinions about this or that type of problem being shit is irrelevant to the question of what is and isn't legitimate.

Well that is true, Monsieur Trilobite, but even so it seems that arguing about what start is legitimate for arse-of-the-ground-crux morpho sitters is a bit like arguing whether it's the best etiquette to eat a plate of dog turd with a spoon, fork, or indeed, a spork (I vote the latter).

[scragrock]

I think people's opinions about this or that type of problem being shit is irrelevant to the question of what is and isn't legitimate.

Well that is true, Monsieur Trilobite, but even so it seems that arguing about what start is legitimate for arse-of-the-ground-crux morpho sitters is a bit like arguing whether it's the best etiquette to eat a plate of dog turd with a spoon, fork, or indeed, a spork (I vote the latter).

WHAT surely the best dish for that , would be a bowl and chopsticks.

Just reinforcing your last retort Fiend and the pointlessness of this entire thread

[remus]

I think it's a bit harsh saying the whole thread is pointless. Clearly people care about climbing named problems (even the shit ones with weird morpho sit starts) so I think it makes sense to be explicit about what the rules of the game are. C.f. the shit show around Franco's ascent (or not) of the prow.

[Wellsy]

I think it's considered a bit unfashionable to say that things like grades and rules can enhance the experience but I genuinely think they can. Doing harder, clearly defined problems satisfies me more than easier, ill-defined problems. Sometimes I like to do an easier beauty but I'd be lying if I said that I'd be happy if I never did anything that didn't get a bigger grade than anything I've already done

[scragrock]

I think it's a bit harsh saying the whole thread is pointless. Clearly people care about climbing named problems (even the shit ones with weird morpho sit starts) so I think it makes sense to be explicit about what the rules of the game are. C.f. the shit show around Franco's ascent (or not) of the prow.

OK i take your point and im not really trying to play down the genuine reasons we have for the rules and boundaries across our sport.
This thread and a host of others could be stacked and gathered under one overarching Title- "How we judge ourselves".

I have come to the conclusion that for me, the art of not judging myself or others is the key to happy climbing, it is very much a work in progress.

[sxrxg]

I think it's considered a bit unfashionable to say that things like grades and rules can enhance the experience but I genuinely think they can. Doing harder, clearly defined problems satisfies me more than easier, ill-defined problems. Sometimes I like to do an easier beauty but I'd be lying if I said that I'd be happy if I never did anything that didn't get a bigger grade than anything I've already done

As a purely hypothetical question if you did a problem that took considerably longer than anything you have tried previously, you had to work out all the moves yourself, you had to pull harder than you can ever remember pulling, you get into a flow state and mange to pull off what you believed could well be impossible for you. Later on however you find that  this problem is graded considerably below your hardest climbed problem would this make you happy?

[Wellsy]

Sure but I'd probably disagree with the respective grades. I'd never argue grading is perfect or absolute; it obviously isn't (I also like the idea of grading ascents not problems). But generally speaking harder stuff gets harder grades. And also there's a stylistic thing; a tall gritstone slab at 6C would be much more of an achievement for me than a low limestone crimpfest at 7A, but I'd compare my success against my past capabilities in that style

Point being I like doing stuff that's hard for me and pushing my limits, typically grades are a signifier of that, and so I find they do enhance my experience.

[Bonjoy]

I think people's opinions about this or that type of problem being shit is irrelevant to the question of what is and isn't legitimate.

Well that is true, Monsieur Trilobite, but even so it seems that arguing about what start is legitimate for arse-of-the-ground-crux morpho sitters is a bit like arguing whether it's the best etiquette to eat a plate of dog turd with a spoon, fork, or indeed, a spork (I vote the latter).

That's a valid perspective from your stated position, that any problem relevant to this discussion is inherently shit. But that puts your contribution firmly in the realms of noise/heckling. Like me going on a discussion about the finer points of the offside rule and saying the discussion is pointless because football is shit. My opinion is valid, but also irrelevant.