[petejh]

Is it possible to despair at both the climber AND their climbs? Asking for a friend.


Plenty of people have boiled down the main annoyance (for some) - it’s not the recording as such, it’s the over-starring which then makes good climbs less identifiable in a database compared to poor climbs. Recording local eliminates as the same ‘quality rating’ as the best boulders of their grade nationally is clearly insanity. Cue starring debate.

[Wellsy]

I think people should be honest; they don't like people putting up problems they don't think are good on UKC because they feel that that climb/climber doesn't have the requisite pedigree to be doing FAs.

Now that's a top steaming mound of horseshit if I ever smelled one! The problem and the ascentionist are two separate entities, it's perfectly possible to like and respect a climber and despair at some of the dross they claim, or equally possible to think that someone is a massive choad-scraping but fully respect the validity and quality of the climbs they put up.

Remus has adequately demonstrated the wheat vs chaff issue (which might be a genuine reason for some of the objectors, unlike your guesstimate of their reason!).

You may say that but I absolutely think it colours the view of some people, consciously or not. Is it the only source of objection? No. But I think it is true that it is there. Those who are respected members of the community doing first ascents (such as yourself, despite any horror you might feel at the suggestion  ) may not notice it but I believe others do and have, in fact.

[Wellsy]

Some people could put a mid 7s grade and two stars on mantling a wart on Fiend's bellend and people would be falling over themselves to tongue their arse in admiration.

Other people might put a lot of time and effort into something they think is cool only to get told it is trash! Resulting in them crying into their pillow for days. Shameful.

[Jack Andrew]

I completely understand the point in regards to people giving their problems too many stars, however there seems to be a culture of bin voting problems on UKC too, which to me seems as bad as people being trigger happy with stars.

What’s more sad, someone going out and climbing something they think is new and maybe getting a bit too over excited, or bin voting something you haven’t tried because you don’t like the idea of it.

Making voting public would maybe solve some of the issues but also maybe just trying to have more of an open discussion on UKC rather than just bin voting.

[Ross Barker]

I think you raise a fair point Wellsy, about subconsciously assuming your opinion of a problem just because of who FA'd it. In some cases it might be reasonably harmless, like the FA is a lanky streak of piss so it's probably reachy, or it'll be a crimpy sandbag from known crimp weapon. In other cases though we might end up associating other developers with scrappy lowballs, shit eliminates, or even tedious there-and-back traverses.

I know I've been guilty of this myself, I can't imagine I'm the only one...

Also to the point of mass-bin-voting routes, I think one should only be able to vote on grade and quality if they log a route themselves, even if it's a DNF.

[webbo]

Some people could put a mid 7s grade and two stars on mantling a wart on Fiend's bellend and people would be falling over themselves to tongue their arse in admiration.

Other people might put a lot of time and effort into something they think is cool only to get told it is trash! Resulting in them crying into their pillow for days. Shameful.

How awful. I wonder what would happen if they got criticism about something important.

[Wellsy]

I never vote on UKC but honestly I'm surprised you can log an opinion of the climb unless you logged that you tried it. I'd definitely say that should be there

[Wellsy]

Some people could put a mid 7s grade and two stars on mantling a wart on Fiend's bellend and people would be falling over themselves to tongue their arse in admiration.

Other people might put a lot of time and effort into something they think is cool only to get told it is trash! Resulting in them crying into their pillow for days. Shameful.

How awful. I wonder what would happen if they got criticism about something important.

When I posted something at Stanage Far Left I'd done to see if anyone had done it before, you proceeded to be an arse about it and say I'd climbed it badly and ignored an obvious left handhold.

When the person (a well known FA'er) who had done the problem before me came in to say they'd already done it but they agreed that using the left handhold actually made it harder, you curiously did not express any kind of similar opinion to them?

I mean, I dunno who you are and I don't hold any hard feeling, I've been an arse many times myself, and I can certainly appreciate that some people through their wealth of experience will rightly have more sway in terms of opinion. Totally fair. But there is a decent way and a less decent way to go about it no? And this is exactly what I mean by saying that some people can do something and people will be fine with it, others will get a slagging off, so I suppose I should appreciate the reminder really

[webbo]

Wellsy I’m not trying have row with you. But you complain about my criticism of what you’d climbed and videoed. You now have made a point using fiend as an example in somewhat derogatory terms but that’s ok.
Given what I said at the time and I wasn’t the only one and your still upset about a problem you didn’t even climb. I wonder what’s going here.

[Wellsy]

I was making light of the topic, no offense intended and apologies if caused. And I'm honestly not bothered by that whole affair (I'm very proud of that bit of climbing as it happens), but I do think that it was an example of the kind of phenomenon I'm talking about, and that I've seen in other places since, and other people have mentioned feeling the same way.

As always the disclaimer of "its only climbing it doesn't really matter" applies ofc

[User deactivated.]

I'd just give everything 3 stars because all climbing is great 

[spidermonkey09]

This starts halfway along an established problem. Surely either get good or GTFO? The old Caley guide describes the problems as those you can do and those you can't 

I have to declare an interest here; I added the Kidneystone stand start to UKC as I thought it was a good problem in its own right. So I dunno, sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. To take the Lakes as an example, way too many problems there have totally arbitrary one move sit starts when one could pull on more logically higher up. I think I've added some of these stand starts as well in the past, which I'm convinced are often better than the 'original' problem...so who knows.

[spidermonkey09]

Is that a problem? So what if people put stuff on there? What is "clogging it up?" Why is it it a problem for you if someone puts a problem you dont like on UKC? Have you tried it? Even if you did is that you didn't like it relevant? Why should it not be there?

I am sure that you can come up with reasons but essentially they'll come down to "I don't like it" and to that I ask, without any clear answer myself, is that a problem with the person putting up the climb? Or is it a problem within us.

My answers to all the above is absolutely 'I don't like it!' as you suggest. Clogging it up has been explained by numerous people but essentially amounts to not being able to tell which problems are good and which are not. We could have a metaphysical discussion about the nature of quality and what constitutes 'good' climbing, but I feel like its been fairly well established.

As for whether its a problem with people putting up the climb, thats absolutely not the case; I couldn't care less who did it. I actually think bouldering first ascent details shouldn't be in future guides unless they are nationally significant (Careless Torque, Bosi/Roberts hard stuff etc), I just don't think it matters. As for the bin voting thing I have heard of precisely one incidence of this ever happening; wasn't aware it was a plague sweeping ukc (if indeed it is).

Basically what Pete said;

Is it possible to despair at both the climber AND their climbs? Asking for a friend.


Plenty of people have boiled down the main annoyance (for some) - it’s not the recording as such, it’s the over-starring which then makes good climbs less identifiable in a database compared to poor climbs. Recording local eliminates as the same ‘quality rating’ as the best boulders of their grade nationally is clearly insanity. Cue starring debate.

[Carliios]

This starts halfway along an established problem. Surely either get good or GTFO? The old Caley guide describes the problems as those you can do and those you can't 

I have to declare an interest here; I added the Kidneystone stand start to UKC as I thought it was a good problem in its own right. So I dunno, sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. To take the Lakes as an example, way too many problems there have totally arbitrary one move sit starts when one could pull on more logically higher up. I think I've added some of these stand starts as well in the past, which I'm convinced are often better than the 'original' problem...so who knows.

See in my opinion kidneystone doesn’t need a stand start. It’s all very subjective. 

[sdm]

The problem is it can be hard to tell how good a crag genuinely is. For example, if you look at https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/forest_rock-1171/ you'd most likely get a different impression from what you'll experience if you go there.

I think it's obvious from the Forest Rock UKC page that you are looking at a training venue full of linkups, variations, eliminates and sitstarts.

For example, nobody who is at all familiar with UK bouldering training venues and problem naming is looking at these sections below and expecting to find anything other than a bunch of variations on the same problem(s):

Lucid interval   f7C
Lucid Interval Sit Start   f8A
Lucid Interval of Insanity   f7C+
One Clear Moment   f8A
One Clear Moment Sit Start   f8A+
One Clear Moment of Insanity   f8A
One Clear Moment of Insanity Sit Start   f8A+

Sorcerer   f5+
Sorcerer Arete   f7A
Saucy (boulder problem)   f5
Saucy (sit-start)   f6B
Sourcier   f7A
Saucy Sorcerer   f7A+
Awen   f7B
Sorcerer Direct   f6C+

34 of the other problems are included in the "Link Ups and Traverses" section, 2 more problems have "Traverse" in their name, and a handful of other problems have sitstart/low start/extension etc in their name.

[petejh]

… yet despite that, lots of them have been given the same quality rating as Careless Torque or Malc’s Arête. This is worthy of being challenged isn’t it? But then I question myself, as I think climbing an arbitrary line of drilled pockets across a quarried roof in parisellas cave to be an ace climbing experience worthy of the ‘3-star appendage’. (I note Rock Atrocity only gets two stars on ukc in a criminal act of understarring).


One of these things is (I presume) not like the others:
Malc’s Arête ***
Westside Story ***
Roof of a Baby Buddha ***
Saucy (sit start) ***

[Fiend]

One of these things is (I presume) not like the others:
Malc’s Arête ***
Westside Story ***
Roof of a Baby Buddha ***
Saucy (sit start) ***

Definitely Rock Atrocity ** out of that list. Pretty sure Saucy SS has some sort of line. I did enjoy the trad at Forest Rock.

[Fiend]

Some people could put a mid 7s grade and two stars on mantling a wart on Fiend's bellend and people would be falling over themselves to tongue their arse in admiration.

are you just appealing to my puerile potty humour to win me over in the debate??

You may say that but I absolutely think it colours the view of some people, consciously or not.

Sure it might be a bias for SOME people, but your original post didn't specify that, it gave that as the reason in general. Whilst I and others have straight up given other reasons. All I can say is that when I look at one of these.....things on UKC, I almost never know the person who is claiming them, but if it looks like a turd, sounds like a turd, and has enough rules to make it a rule-laden turd, it's probably a turd. Equally there are some climbers who come across as tedious scrotes with their relentlessly annoying personalities, and they can still put up some amazing-looking routes on the North York Moors


And yeah voting on UKC is as much of a shambles as everything else, I say that as the target of repeated photo down-voting (even once they removed the voting split information, you could still see it if there were few votes and a 1 vote on a clearly "at least decent" photo would skew it wildly).


In other aspects, I agree with SM09 about overriding bad starts that are just pointless extra moves for the sake of difficulty, and SDM raises a good point that it's quite obvious the most of Forest Rock is going to be LOG but arguably nearly as fun as the climbing wall if you like training on 8As.

[sdm]

… yet despite that, lots of them have been given the same quality rating as Careless Torque or Malc’s Arête. This is worthy of being challenged isn’t it? But then I question myself, as I think climbing an arbitrary line of drilled pockets across a quarried roof in parisellas cave to be an ace climbing experience worthy of the ‘3-star appendage’. (I note Rock Atrocity only gets two stars on ukc in a criminal act of understarring).


One of these things is (I presume) not like the others:
Malc’s Arête ***
Westside Story ***
Roof of a Baby Buddha ***
Saucy (sit start) ***

You're completely right on the star ratings being inflated, and on Rock Atrocity 

I've always done my little bit to try to bring some sanity to the star ratings at Forest Rock through my votes. I think Heathen Chemistry and Enchantress might be the only problems where I agree with the UKC stars.

I am the only person so far to ever vote 1-star for Saucy sit start so maybe we are the ones who are wrong 

[andy moles]

Recording local eliminates as the same ‘quality rating’ as the best boulders of their grade nationally is clearly insanity.

I wonder if the cause of this is one of two related things.

1. People who haven't been around much, at least not recently, and who have therefore lost or have never gained much sense of perspective on quality. To be fair, there is an argument (though not one I agree with) for starring on a local rather than a national scale, and in the current climate there is plenty to justify not trotting around the country/globe to climb.

2. People whose pathway to bouldering has not connected them with broader aesthetics of climbing, such as the beauty of a feature and the logic of a line (not that you don't get similar things going on with trad and sport, but perhaps to a lesser extent). Perhaps rating quality purely on the moves has increased as the standard pathway into rock climbing has become indoor walls.

[spidermonkey09]

See in my opinion kidneystone doesn’t need a stand start. It’s all very subjective. 

I agree tbh, it was definitely something I did because I didn't do the sit that session.  If it got moved to the 'pointless problems' section of the ukc page I wouldn't complain (not that I have any real stake compared to an FA though). More widely though I still think stand starts to established problems are often significantly more worthwhile than eliminate 'first ascents' (which are obviously nothing of the sort).

2. People whose pathway to bouldering has not connected them with broader aesthetics of climbing, such as the beauty of a feature and the logic of a line (not that you don't get similar things going on with trad and sport, but perhaps to a lesser extent). Perhaps rating quality purely on the moves has increased as the standard pathway into rock climbing has become indoor walls.

I agree with this. People talk about 'great moves', 'amazing moves', 'looks shit but climbs really well' and use this to justify star ratings on problems. Moves are obviously important but its not the only thing that counts (for me at least). You do see this with sport climbing as well (Raindogs being the obvious example of something that looks rubbish but climbs well) but its more isolated and often based on historic importance rather than being common.

[Wellsy]

Some people could put a mid 7s grade and two stars on mantling a wart on Fiend's bellend and people would be falling over themselves to tongue their arse in admiration.

are you just appealing to my puerile potty humour to win me over in the debate??

You may say that but I absolutely think it colours the view of some people, consciously or not.

Sure it might be a bias for SOME people, but your original post didn't specify that, it gave that as the reason in general. Whilst I and others have straight up given other reasons. All I can say is that when I look at one of these.....things on UKC, I almost never know the person who is claiming them, but if it looks like a turd, sounds like a turd, and has enough rules to make it a rule-laden turd, it's probably a turd. Equally there are some climbers who come across as tedious scrotes with their relentlessly annoying personalities, and they can still put up some amazing-looking routes on the North York Moors


And yeah voting on UKC is as much of a shambles as everything else, I say that as the target of repeated photo down-voting (even once they removed the voting split information, you could still see it if there were few votes and a 1 vote on a clearly "at least decent" photo would skew it wildly).


In other aspects, I agree with SM09 about overriding bad starts that are just pointless extra moves for the sake of difficulty, and SDM raises a good point that it's quite obvious the most of Forest Rock is going to be LOG but arguably nearly as fun as the climbing wall if you like training on 8As.

Just my own love of it 

I am sure some people don't care, I am pretty sure some people have their opinion coloured and maybe wouldn't even admit it to themselves!

As for UKC voting, a simple change as outlined above would probably be good. As for quality, I certainly base it on how it feels to climb it rather than look at it.

[SA Chris]

I'd just give everything 3 stars because all climbing is great 

Thanks Starfire.

[andy moles]

As for quality, I certainly base it on how it feels to climb it rather than look at it.

Standard reduction of the concept of 'line' to 'what it looks like' 

Sure some things look like dirt but have good moves, just as some things look good but climb terribly, but it's rarely either/or and the best things are the full package: satisfying movement, pleasing haptics on the rock, visually compelling, logical, balanced, attractive setting, etc.

[Ian T]

I'm not keen on haptick marks...