[Carliios]

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).

Not sure I fully agree with that. I put up an FA which was a low start “eliminate” to a stand start and in my opinion it climbs the feature more purely. For clarities sake I’m speaking of Applied Stress at Burbage South (https://www.instagram.com/tv/CdygvTSjuru/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=). Originally climbed by Sam Lawson from a stand using a bunch of kneebars even though it’s possibly one of the most aesthetic and pure narrow compression boulders in the Peak District. In my opinion it’s more worthwhile climbing it without kneebars on the sidewall and a much more decent challenge and overall more pure, even if it’s considered an eliminate.

Yet I was harassed about it on here and it was bin voted by a bunch of knobs. Their loss, the people that have actually bothered to try it have agreed that it’s a much better line. I even showed Sam who agreed that it looked like a good line so  in my opinion it was totally worth logging and documenting.

[petejh]

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

This is as much a rationale for a system that gives everything no stars.

[spidermonkey09]

Thats fine if you think its worth logging and documenting but surely others are perfectly entitled to think it looks a bt shit if thats their view?

I'll be perfectly honest and say both the original with knees and the eliminate look a bit shit to me! (obviously not a reflection on you as we have never met, or on Sam!) Each to their own and all that but a lay down start with dabby potential doesn't do it for me. (I think the same about the low start to Zaff- dross). the way these have been added to the database seems broadly ok though; ie with no stars/1 star at most; they are there for those interested but don't pretend to be something they aren't, which is ultimately what we're discussing as its that which makes it hard to distinguish between problems. 

The above is all meant with a smile rather than as a critique on how you choose to spend your free time!  I quite often think the new problems on the Wedge vids look average to terrible as well!

[Wellsy]

I think all of those are covered by the term "aesthetics" and I'd agree they are all relevant but we all have our own particular aesthetic preferences and areas which are more or less important to us and those preferences mean that one person's 3 stars is another's 0 and vice versa.

[Footwork]

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. 

You still haven't done the sit   

Basically we're all guilty of something on this thread one way or another. I've overstarred FA's because Will Hunt forced me to (Silk Road). I try and be conservative with FA stars now (only Siege of Orleans deserves them truly).

On a side note, I don't think retro claims detract from the overall experience. You still go through the joys of finding, cleaning (breaking), sussing out the moves, worrying someone will find it, doing it, naming and grading it etc. Someone retro claiming doesnt suddenly take all of those experiences away from you (because you weren't aware).

I got retro'd by Paul Clarke recently, at a lower grade!  do it long enough and you'll get the up on Bonjoy one day.

[Carliios]

Thats fine if you think its worth logging and documenting but surely others are perfectly entitled to think it looks a bt shit if thats their view?

I'll be perfectly honest and say both the original with knees and the eliminate look a bit shit to me! (obviously not a reflection on you as we have never met, or on Sam!) Each to their own and all that but a lay down start with dabby potential doesn't do it for me. (I think the same about the low start to Zaff- dross). the way these have been added to the database seems broadly ok though; ie with no stars/1 star at most; they are there for those interested but don't pretend to be something they aren't, which is ultimately what we're discussing as its that which makes it hard to distinguish between problems. 

The above is all meant with a smile rather than as a critique on how you choose to spend your free time!  I quite often think the new problems on the Wedge vids look average to terrible as well!

I guess it depends on what you enjoy in climbing. For me it’s more about the challenge and movement than aesthetic, I’ve never cared about how a climb looks but more how I can move across it, I’m also a total sucker for compression prows so to me it’s a great line to climb. Though I would say I’ve put up great looking lines too (Carlos Torque for example) - but this then leads to what Wellsey has said, one man’s choss is another man’s gold, so you can’t just expect everyone to follow the same guidelines as you which is why this whole thread seems quite redundant 

[mrjonathanr]

Regarding stars, I think people get very invested in their own sense of achievement without being willing to step back and draw broader comparisons. To me, a 1* problem is good, 2** is really very good and 3*** is awesome.

Throwing stars around devalues the system, especially when their absence does not mean the route or problem isn’t worthwhile.

Maybe we should go full ukc and have 3 downtick symbols for poor, awful and avoid at all costs.

[Fiend]

Actually the thread as about the possibility of not documenting everything, including abstaining from claiming clearly good routes, rather than the merits or otherwise of claiming every last bit of choss - although discussing the latter is clearly more fun 

[36chambers]

Yet I was harassed about it on here and it was bin voted by a bunch of knobs. Their loss, the people that have actually bothered to try it have agreed that it’s a much better line. I even showed Sam who agreed that it looked like a good line so  in my opinion it was totally worth logging and documenting.

In my opinion, that looks like that could be worth logging as Qui Gone Gym Low and graded using the easiest, non eliminate, sequence.

I'd say the same to Bonjoy/Sam/Fiend, just to clarify that it's nothing personal.

Obviously, my opinion is just that. So perhaps we should have a pole for every new climb to deem whether it's worthwhile documenting or not

[Droyd]

Massively off-topic but one quick thought: People being rude and bin-voting things en masse obviously isn't okay, but I feel like Qui Gone Gym and Applied Stress are both slightly convoluted ways of starting and finishing in the same place as The Kursk but without actually jamming the crack of The Kursk, and one way of looking at The Kursk is that it's a sit start to a three-star VS that starts in a grotty pit at the base of one of the most famous buttresses on grit and finishes on the holds that trad climbers pull on at (I seem to recall Grimer having something to do with this and I imagine got a real kick out of it). All bouldering involves an element of arbitrary rules that mean the arete/sidewall/floor is out for no other reason than the problem climbs better that way, but I can see how people might question giving a star to a problem that eliminates a technique on another problem (in that you're compressing the prow rather than using the easier kneebar sequence of Qui Gone Gym) which itself is a variant on a problem that itself is a sit start to a popular mid-grade trad route.

[mrjonathanr]

As for not documenting everything as per the OP, I find the proposition absurd. Why is it necessary to document things at all? I can see it has merits (imagine a world without guidebooks) but there’s really no necessity. Preserving a little bit of the unknown is a great thing.

[Carliios]

Yet I was harassed about it on here and it was bin voted by a bunch of knobs. Their loss, the people that have actually bothered to try it have agreed that it’s a much better line. I even showed Sam who agreed that it looked like a good line so  in my opinion it was totally worth logging and documenting.

In my opinion, that looks like that could be worth logging as Qui Gone Gym Low and graded using the easiest, non eliminate, sequence.

I'd say the same to Bonjoy/Sam/Fiend, just to clarify that it's nothing personal.

Obviously, my opinion is just that. So perhaps we should have a pole for every new climb to deem whether it's worthwhile documenting or not

If you sit below the bloc when you climb it it doesn’t feel at all like an eliminate. The back walls are so far behind that it feels more like dabbing than eliminating, sometimes these are perspective issues and it’s hard to tell from videos and pictures which again is a good reason why you shouldn’t judge a climb before you’ve sat underneath it, I think we’ve all thought something was easy/hard/different until we’ve gone to try it only for it to feel the opposite. Next time you’re at burbage south go see it in person and you’ll know what I mean.

In reply to Droyd, applied stress starts around 4 moves before qui gone gym and those 4 extra moves are hard and have nothing to do with the Kursk which starts further back in the crack. I still believe climbing the VERY obvious feature as a compression prow is the best variation of all 3 (the kneebar, the crack and the prow) - again, It might be one of the only narrow compression prows of its kind, why wouldn’t you want to climb it that way when it’s more pure?

My final point, if we’re gonna complain about eliminates on grit please can we remove all the green traverse eliminates including Ron’s Reach and any other of the many many eliminate climbs that exist on grit?

[remus]

Throwing stars around devalues the system, especially when their absence does not mean the route or problem isn’t worthwhile.

The problem is people enjoy very different things in climbing and therefore starring stuff is even more of a stab in the dark than grading. Personally I think people tend to give lots of stars to things when they have an enjoyable experience on it, and that just doesn't correlate very well with whether someone else will have a good time on it.

One of the best climbing experiences I've ever had started off with 6m of soloing up a wet, moss encrusted slab where if you fell off you'd probably tool yourself in on a ledge before falling in the sea. For me the whole experience was transcendental, definitive 5 star stuff. On the other hand there's plenty of people who'd sooner have a bath in their own shit. How many stars do you give that?

People want to get on three star lines and have a good time, but it's not going to happen and I think getting too attached to stars is the issue, not the proliferation of stars.

[andy moles]

One of the best climbing experiences I've ever had started off with 6m of soloing up a wet, moss encrusted slab where if you fell off you'd probably tool yourself in on a ledge before falling in the sea. For me the whole experience was transcendental, definitive 5 star stuff. On the other hand there's plenty of people who'd sooner have a bath in their own shit. How many stars do you give that?

Doesn't the fact that you're able to give it as an example illustrate that you're able to detach your experience from the 'objective' quality?

Conversely I've had an awful time on hallowed classics, but I can recognise that they are still outstanding routes.

[abarro81]

more pure?

Eliminates are inherently less pure, IMO, since they're more artificial. But that's just me.

[Carliios]

more pure?

Eliminates are inherently less pure, IMO, since they're more artificial. But that's just me.

The definition of pure is to not mix or  adulter something. I would say by not using the assistance of the sidewalls you’re climbing something more purely in that specific style (very narrow compression)

[Fiend]

My final point, if we’re gonna complain about eliminates on grit please can we remove all the green traverse eliminates including Ron’s Reach and any other of the many many eliminate climbs that exist on grit?

Yes please!! Unless they're beautiful and aesthic eliminates with fantastic moves and the bare minimum of logical rules.

I do believe I replied to your Applied Stress problem with something like "That's terrible beta for The Kursk" which was clearly because I despite this Carliios character and everything he stands for errrr hopefully recognisable as a joke because it's obviously quite different from the adjacent roof crack. Having a bit of a laugh about eliminates is not the same as fully h8ing on them (the latter being far more suitable for 3 star traverses on man-made Carn Brea monuments)

[Carliios]

My final point, if we’re gonna complain about eliminates on grit please can we remove all the green traverse eliminates including Ron’s Reach and any other of the many many eliminate climbs that exist on grit?

Yes please!! Unless they're beautiful and aesthic eliminates with fantastic moves and the bare minimum of logical rules.

I do believe I replied to your Applied Stress problem with something like "That's terrible beta for The Kursk" which was clearly because I despite this Carliios character and everything he stands for errrr hopefully recognisable as a joke because it's obviously quite different from the adjacent roof crack. Having a bit of a laugh about eliminates is not the same as fully h8ing on them (the latter being far more suitable for 3 star traverses on man-made Carn Brea monuments)

Aha don’t worry it wasn’t you really, but the line did get mass bin voted along with every single one of my FAs, someone used the UKC bin vote bug to bin one of my lines 400 or so times!

[Wellsy]

Lol really? That's pretty laughable, what sad bugger is spending their time doing that?

[webbo]

Wel it can’t be Fiend or myself as we are both banned from UKC.

[Wellsy]

A badge of honour I'd imagine? 

[webbo]

Unfortunately it means I post more shite on here.

[Carliios]

Lol really? That's pretty laughable, what sad bugger is spending their time doing that?

Yes people really are that sad. I did ask the UKC devs if they would tell me who it was doing it but alas, they wouldn’t share 

[remus]

One of the best climbing experiences I've ever had started off with 6m of soloing up a wet, moss encrusted slab where if you fell off you'd probably tool yourself in on a ledge before falling in the sea. For me the whole experience was transcendental, definitive 5 star stuff. On the other hand there's plenty of people who'd sooner have a bath in their own shit. How many stars do you give that?

Doesn't the fact that you're able to give it as an example illustrate that you're able to detach your experience from the 'objective' quality?

Conversely I've had an awful time on hallowed classics, but I can recognise that they are still outstanding routes.

What's objective quality? I think there's things that make it more or less likely that someone will have a good time on a piece of rock (good line, comfortable holds, history etc.) but I think it's more a loose correlation rather than anything objectively good about it. Some people just don't really care about some aspects, paraphrasing Malc "I don't really care about the line, it's all about the individual moves".

[i_a_coops]

I met a bloke in Cochamo who would have loved this thread, he was super psyched about his strict 'leave no trace' ascents - ie no cleaning, no chalk, and no telling anyone else what he'd climbed. He had the most enormous beard I've ever seen, possibly for the same reasons - I didn't ask...

For anyone who hasn't tried climbing un-cleaned rock in Cochamo, the natural state of a lot of the rock there is buried under an inch of moss with all the cracks full of mud and plants, so guess this proves that it takes all sorts?! He reckoned it was the purest form of ascent as it meant the exact same experience was still out there for anyone else to have. 

Also, Saucy (Sit Start) is really good (I genuinely have no memory of giving 3* to my own mediocre contributions to Forest Rock )