[Bonjoy]

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

And yet here you are 

[Bonjoy]

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.

I can see how some people put pressure on themselves in an unhealthy way. But that's down to the player, not the game.
What you call judgement others would call understanding. Understanding how difficult something is likely to be. Hence if it's suitable for current abilities. Will this climb make for a fun day? How did it feel for others? Am I likely to fall off (especially if it's high)?
I see grades from a utilitarian perspective. They provide me with information and a means to communicate. The more accurate the better. I don't feel aggrieved if I can't climb a particular grade, or triumphant if I find something easy at a grade, as such I don't feel 'judged' by them. I'm long in the tooth enough to know they are a rough guide at best. I see this imperfection as a reason to try hard to get them as 'right' as they can be. The simplest bit of this is agreeing what the climbs parameters are. The other bits are tricky, why skip the easy bit.

[Moo]

I think a poll is called for.

[GazM]

I don't see these threads as judgement Rob, more like an expression of bemusement or frustration when people who claim to be working within the broadly agreed 'rules of the game' (by posting videos of themselves climbing named problems with grades) so obviously break those 'rules'.
I'm sure we all like to think that climbing up random rocks should be all laissez-fare and you're free to do whatever you want, but the truth is that bouldering does have widely agreed rules.

[edshakey]

people who claim to be working within the broadly agreed 'rules of the game' (by posting videos of themselves climbing named problems with grades) so obviously break those 'rules'.

Agreed, this is my way of seeing it. People can climb however they like but most people do things with names and grades. And although it's largely inconsequential as to what they say they climb, agreed upon rules for problems is a completely logical place to arrive at - else it becomes a free for all of claims. We've already got an established set of rules, why not add to that by deciding on start holds and make everything a good amount clearer? People are still free to do as they please, but at least the knowledge is there to inform if so desired.

[Fiend]

Pointless discussions about climbing minutiae are the best ones!! (Except when they invariably dissolve into the usual Yorkshire circle-jerk about some pico-eliminate bollox at some overrated scrittle heap as usual)

Seriously tho, I don't mind the discussion at all compared to how much I mind the sort of problems in question. Unlike Wellsy I climb for quality as well as challenge. But FWIW, I'm tending to agree with your, and others, sensible perspective about clearly defined starts so everyone knows how the problem works. Also also agreeing with enough pads to be able to pull on the holds "normally". And disagreeing with any tall people, of course.

[SA Chris]

Even this?

Langsters (6ft plus) get nothing more than a single open pad. If they need extra pads to reach the holds too it's clearly not a sit start.

[scragrock]

I don't see these threads as judgement Rob, more like an expression of bemusement or frustration when people who claim to be working within the broadly agreed 'rules of the game' (by posting videos of themselves climbing named problems with grades) so obviously break those 'rules'.
I'm sure we all like to think that climbing up random rocks should be all laissez-fare and you're free to do whatever you want, but the truth is that bouldering does have widely agreed rules.

Mmmmm not convinced that the "rules of the game" are as widely agreed or understood{especially by folks new to the sport or transferring from indoor to out} as you might hope.
I also see the frustration and do give credence to the points you make but we sit on either side of the fence on this issue.
Having an online boulder ethics police force dedicated to finding the minutiae of every posted vid or send is a little too authoritarian for my taste. Wouldn't it be better to say "Great send and im really pleased you loved the line, have you tried the lower start that Gaz/Rob did?".
Climbing for me is Art and expression through movement, i may set a defined parameter for a line on the first ascent then someone comes along and blows this out the water for a myriad of reasons{this has happened a lot}, i realise now that this is a good thing as it brings balance.
Im way more interested in how someone felt about a line, the environment, the conditions, their mental and physical state as a comparison to mine when i did or attempted it rather than a specific grade.       

Happy to hear your thoughts though

[Fiend]

Im way more interested in how someone felt about a line, the environment, the conditions, their mental and physical state as a comparison to mine when i did or attempted it rather than a specific grade.       

Bloody hell grandad that's some wack thinking, do you even Insta, bro??

[scragrock]

Pointless discussions about climbing minutiae are the best ones!! (Except when they invariably dissolve into the usual Yorkshire circle-jerk about some pico-eliminate bollox at some overrated scrittle heap as usual)

Seriously tho, I don't mind the discussion at all compared to how much I mind the sort of problems in question. Unlike Wellsy I climb for quality as well as challenge. But FWIW, I'm tending to agree with your, and others, sensible perspective about clearly defined starts so everyone knows how the problem works. Also also agreeing with enough pads to be able to pull on the holds "normally". And disagreeing with any tall people, of course.

"And disagreeing with any tall people, of course."

  Yup i'm onboard with that

[Wellsy]

All those things are important too, of course

Especially disagreeing with the tall. Goes without saying.

[hongkongstuey]

i got so fed up with people cheating sit starts in HK i felt compelled to write this (and include it in the published guidebook too)

https://hongkongclimbing.com/2020/12/30/bouldering-etiquette/

i also did one for routes too ranting at people top roping and spending hours dogging lines

[andy moles]

Im way more interested in how someone felt about a line, the environment, the conditions, their mental and physical state as a comparison to mine when i did or attempted it rather than a specific grade.       

Happy to hear your thoughts though

Appreciation of the inner experience of climbing a problem and recognising that it can be assigned an approximate difficulty within broadly agreed parameters are not mutually exclusive.

Try publishing a guidebook with no grades, just a short poem accompanying each climb. I'd buy it 

[GazM]

I think you take these threads much more seriously than me Rob. I'd hardly call a bunch of boulder nerds joking on the Internet as authoritarian.

By 'rules of the game' I'm not really referring to the rules of specific eliminates or where a problem starts, more to the basics of what renders an ascent valid or not: dabbing, bouncing off pads to do the 1st move, starting off your mates shoulders. You couldn't claim to have climbed a route if you pulled on gear, likewise you can't claim to have climbed a problem if you kick a pad/tree/spotter halfway through cutting loose. Many people might not care about these things, and that's fine, but if they think they're then able to spray on the internet that they climbed problem X at Y grade they're mistaken. That's where my frustration lies.

As for their mental state at the time, that's not really my business!

[Fultonius]

Im way more interested in how someone felt about a line, the environment, the conditions, their mental and physical state as a comparison to mine when i did or attempted it rather than a specific grade.       

Happy to hear your thoughts though

Appreciation of the inner experience of climbing a problem and recognising that it can be assigned an approximate difficulty within broadly agreed parameters are not mutually exclusive.

Try publishing a guidebook with no grades, just a short poem accompanying each climb. I'd buy it 

That was kind of like the first StoneCountry guide for Scotland - I would even go as far to say as the approach descriptions were nigh on mystical!  I've still not found some of the venues...

[Wellsy]

I'd absolutely buy it

[scragrock]

Im way more interested in how someone felt about a line, the environment, the conditions, their mental and physical state as a comparison to mine when i did or attempted it rather than a specific grade.       

Happy to hear your thoughts though

Appreciation of the inner experience of climbing a problem and recognising that it can be assigned an approximate difficulty within broadly agreed parameters are not mutually exclusive.

Try publishing a guidebook with no grades, just a short poem accompanying each climb. I'd buy it 

I tried floating this kind of thing with John for the new Strathnairn guide, he shot me and my ideas down almost immediately

[Andy W]

i got so fed up with people cheating sit starts in HK i felt compelled to write this (and include it in the published guidebook too)

https://hongkongclimbing.com/2020/12/30/bouldering-etiquette/

i also did one for routes too ranting at people top roping and spending hours dogging lines

This was exactly my point earlier in the thread. Differences in body morphology are part and parcel of what makes bouldering special and fun. If you can't reach the start holds, use an extra pad, that would be common sense. But we also have to accept that if a tall person does a sit start, then it may be much harder or impossible for others. Just as a big dyno might be impossible for people who can't/dislike big dynos (me for instance, now I'm old. I used to like dynos, but I don't want an extra hold added to make them accessible to me now  ). I'm not in favour of having  a wholesale 'its got to be accessible for everyone' type mentality, which I fear is where we might be heading.

[scragrock]

I think you take these threads much more seriously than me Rob. I'd hardly call a bunch of boulder nerds joking on the Internet as authoritarian.

By 'rules of the game' I'm not really referring to the rules of specific eliminates or where a problem starts, more to the basics of what renders an ascent valid or not: dabbing, bouncing off pads to do the 1st move, starting off your mates shoulders. You couldn't claim to have climbed a route if you pulled on gear, likewise you can't claim to have climbed a problem if you kick a pad/tree/spotter halfway through cutting loose. Many people might not care about these things, and that's fine, but if they think they're then able to spray on the internet that they climbed problem X at Y grade they're mistaken. That's where my frustration lies.

As for their mental state at the time, that's not really my business!

Perhaps i do but i know of a few climbers who shun this particular forum due to its perceived negative outlook and that's a shame cause there is a lot of experience and passion here let alone very useful info and insights.

I have No issue with your definition but more in the way its called out or policed.

Many of my problems get climbed differently and are clearly a separate line, starting or ending slightly right or left depending on the protagonist's style/height/strengths etc and that's fine as it all balances out over the years.
I think most folk will self correct given space and time.

Mental state- i mean, how happy they were with their movement, was it a scrabble, were they terrified like i was, that sort of thing
   

[SA Chris]

I'd absolutely buy it

You can have my copy.

I think haiku in place of route descriptions is the way.

[Bonjoy]

I'm not in favour of having  a wholesale 'its got to be accessible for everyone' type mentality, which I fear is where we might be heading.

I'm not sure what this fear is based on. Nobody has advocated for 'personal grading' which is the only thing I can think of which comes close to that aim.
The only 'leveling' measure that's been mentioned is start hold specification and adding enough pads to reach the start holds, which you agreed makes sense. Both of which do as much to preserve difficulty as reduce it, as they seek to eliminate starting from a non sit position on sit starts.

[Hoseyb]

I believe Julie Andrews has the last word on this: