[User deactivated.]

What's objective quality?

That's a very dangerous question!

Source: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance 

[remus]

Source: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance 

Funny you say that, all I could think of when I was typing that out was "This is so Zen and the Art..."

[AndyP]

Seems bizarre to me that anyone would rate a climb based on how it looks. You can see whether a climb looks impressive by looking at it. You don't need stars to tell you, and there seems to be something a little odd a out taking someone's word for it that something looks good when you are able to look at it yourself. I always took star ratings to reflect the quality of movement/overall experience you have on a climb. This is what's actually worth communicating.

In terms of the aesthetics of rock climbing I think this short essay gives a pretty good account: https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/170-the-aesthetics-of-rock-climbing

[Fiend]

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

I can still vote on logbook climbs apparently....

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...

brilliant.

[Duma]

In terms of the aesthetics of rock climbing I think this short essay gives a pretty good account: https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/170-the-aesthetics-of-rock-climbing

Liked that, thanks Andy

[BrutusTheBear]

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.

I find this hard to believe... Mainly because moss doesn't grow by the sea.

[SA Chris]

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.

You need to move up here, there's that kind of shit for days.

[Will Hunt]

I'm only semi-following this so forgive me if this is off -topic or covered elsewhere. There is an issue with over-recording and over-starring. It's natural that when people get stuck into a bit of development they let their excitement get the better of them. I've been there (and admit I still am occasionally a bit cheeky with stars and documenting things which are fairly low-value or crap) but I was fortunate that I had people like Paul Clarke to show the way.

Clearly some people on here feel they've been given a hard time over stuff they've developed* - there's a balance to strike between trying to steer people in the right direction of better development and not stifling the psyche.

With that in mind, to those who say that the quality of movement is the principle arbiter of quality, I say that you are dead wrong. That's indoor climbing and if it applied outdoors then we'd be filling in holds that were superfluous and chipping stuff to give better sequences and thus better problems. We don't do that because when you go rock climbing you accept the rock as it is and you follow where it leads - that is one of rock climbing's absolute fundamentals. Quality of movement is important but rock climbing is so much richer than that. That's why eliminates and link-ups, though they might be fun (and some venues are really well suited to them), should always be secondary to logical problems that seek to climb a line in the most natural way. Avoid contrivance where you can and, if the result isn't as good as you wanted, just accept it and continue the search.

*Carlos, if people were trashing your problems on UKC then maybe they were trying to hint that the problems weren't worth 2 or 3 stars or whatever you'd given them  . Some of your stuff looks decent but there are some things which I'd say look over-starred. Honestly, The Mantelope looks pretty log. What's the rules there? Use the ledge but only the bit that is overhung by the nose, don't step on the bit of the ledge that isn't overhung (because then it would be a 4+) and keep your leg on the left of the nose until you're almost over the top but bring it round to the right at the last minute anyway? It just seems really really contrived. Sorry.

[andy moles]

What's objective quality?

That's why I put it in scare quotes. Of course it's not objective, but my point is that you have enough imagination to identify that the experience you have had on a climb does not define the quality rating that a theoretical consensus would establish. Obviously it's a bit loose and blurry for all sorts of reasons, but most of the time it works reasonably well. We could probably all agree that Airwolf is 'better' than Applied Stress.

[Carliios]

I'm only semi-following this so forgive me if this is off -topic or covered elsewhere. There is an issue with over-recording and over-starring. It's natural that when people get stuck into a bit of development they let their excitement get the better of them. I've been there (and admit I still am occasionally a bit cheeky with stars and documenting things which are fairly low-value or crap) but I was fortunate that I had people like Paul Clarke to show the way.

Clearly some people on here feel they've been given a hard time over stuff they've developed* - there's a balance to strike between trying to steer people in the right direction of better development and not stifling the psyche.

With that in mind, to those who say that the quality of movement is the principle arbiter of quality, I say that you are dead wrong. That's indoor climbing and if it applied outdoors then we'd be filling in holds that were superfluous and chipping stuff to give better sequences and thus better problems. We don't do that because when you go rock climbing you accept the rock as it is and you follow where it leads - that is one of rock climbing's absolute fundamentals. Quality of movement is important but rock climbing is so much richer than that. That's why eliminates and link-ups, though they might be fun (and some venues are really well suited to them), should always be secondary to logical problems that seek to climb a line in the most natural way. Avoid contrivance where you can and, if the result isn't as good as you wanted, just accept it and continue the search.

*Carlos, if people were trashing your problems on UKC then maybe they were trying to hint that the problems weren't worth 2 or 3 stars or whatever you'd given them  . Some of your stuff looks decent but there are some things which I'd say look over-starred. Honestly, The Mantelope looks pretty log. What's the rules there? Use the ledge but only the bit that is overhung by the nose, don't step on the bit of the ledge that isn't overhung (because then it would be a 4+) and keep your leg on the left of the nose until you're almost over the top but bring it round to the right at the last minute anyway? It just seems really really contrived. Sorry.

Lol I will throw hands up and admit Mantelope is 0 stars, that was definitely me letting the excitement get the better of me. To be fair I have emailed Danny and asked him to regrade and remove stars from it and a number of lines. Doesn’t stop the fact that some cunt was mass bin voting all my lines. The line to the left is very good and didn’t deserve the 80 odd bin votes it got from whichever loser had time sit around and refresh their browser.

Also the line is fairly obvious, you stick to the prow. Use the foot rail all you like but if you stick to the prow it won’t help going out right anyways, it’ll be detrimental if anything.  Again there’s many lines where you stick to one part of a piece of rock and an easier line is right next to it, this is nothing new. It’s like when people gave me shit for putting up the slab at burbage south next to an arête even though Ron has about 29 Rons Slabs that do exactly that, climb an eliminate slabs right next to an arête.

There’s many lines on grit, some “classics” E.g. The Rib at Burbage South which have totally arbitrary rules such as don’t use the huge foot ledge you can reach from the start holds. So again, either apply the same rules across everything or continue to pick and choose what you want to shit on 

[andy moles]

Doesn’t stop the fact that some cunt was mass bin voting all my lines. The line to the left is very good and didn’t deserve the 80 odd bin votes it got from whichever loser had time sit around and refresh their browser.

You sure this isn't just a mate winding you up?

[Carliios]

Doesn’t stop the fact that some cunt was mass bin voting all my lines. The line to the left is very good and didn’t deserve the 80 odd bin votes it got from whichever loser had time sit around and refresh their browser.

You sure this isn't just a mate winding you up?

If it is, mission accomplished 

[Will Hunt]

Ron has about 29 Rons Slabs that do exactly that, climb an eliminate slabs right next to an arête.

But Ron didn't give them three stars; he didn't even name them (the convention is that you don't name problems after yourself. They get named after you if you don't bother to give them a name).

[Carliios]

Ron has about 29 Rons Slabs that do exactly that, climb an eliminate slabs right next to an arête.

But Ron didn't give them three stars; he didn't even name them (the convention is that you don't name problems after yourself. They get named after you if you don't bother to give them a name).

We’re not talking about naming conventions haha. We’re talking about the style of climbing. But yes, lots of peak grit classic have arbitrary rules, do they not? I would sit here and list many but I can’t be arsed. It just annoys me that there’s no real consensus across the board as to what is considered an arbitrary rule and what isn’t and like Wellsey said earlier in the thread it does feel like the negativity is often aimed at the individual more so than the actual climbs.

I will admit that I’m still a total punter when it comes to development, and I’m sure with time I will also become jaded about choss getting 1/2/3 stars on UKC, but it is a learning curve so please give me time to get acquainted with it, that’s all I’m asking. We were all new at this at some point. I’m still very psyched with finding new stuff and opening new lines for people to try.

[spidermonkey09]

A lot of the 'classics' you are objecting to are definitely a bit shit. The Rib falls into this category for me, as does Green Traverse. They are relics from the early era of bouldering development in the Peak when the sport was in its infancy. They are considered 'classics' because of their historical interest, but over time people will probably acknowledge that they are, in reality, not that good. There are loads of problems like this; would be a good thread. Blockbuster at Caley is another one; absolutely shite yet weirdly considered classic in previous guidebooks.

However, I don't think that saying 'look at this perceived classic from 30/35 years ago, (when bouldering was completely different to how it is now, when there was no guidebooks to bouldering, no internet, and the entire pursuit was still broadly considered as 'training,'); that problem is a bit eliminate and is considered classic, why is my eliminate problem any different, this is unfair treatment,' isn't really saying what you think it is. The Rib was probably climbed by someone pissing around after work, was repeated by the Sheffield mafia who then wrote a guide and gave it three stars cause their mate did it (no idea if this is actually true for John Welford but I bet it is for loads of old 'classics.'). It might also have genuinely been one of the best around when bouldering in the UK was so undeveloped back then. The rules of the game have completely changed and for the better; it's nice to think that going forward, we should apply a more rigorous assessment of quality to boulder problems than we did previously.

Yes, your problems are held to a different standard than problems done yonks ago, because they are being climbed in a totally different environment.

[andy moles]

I’m still very psyched with finding new stuff and opening new lines for people to try.

You are a little bit up against it trying to develop new lines at the some of most popular bouldering crags in...the world?? I don't doubt there are still gems to be found on Peak grit, but it's not like no one's been for a look.

Even in North Wales these days you have to walk up a mountain and down the other side and get a heli-drop of patio materials to climb something that hasn't already been traversed and reversed and linked to death.

[Johnny Brown]

Not much to add other than the song currently playing in my head is Spiritualized's '200 bars' with the new lyrics '400 bin votes'.

I've been abused,
and I've been used
I'm gonna lose my thoughts in
400 bin votes
You know I've tried,
but I know I'm tired
I'm losing track of time in
400 bin votes
etc...

[Carliios]

I’m still very psyched with finding new stuff and opening new lines for people to try.

You are a little bit up against it trying to develop new lines at the some of most popular bouldering crags in...the world?? I don't doubt there are still gems to be found on Peak grit, but it's not like no one's been for a look.

Even in North Wales these days you have to walk up a mountain and down the other side and get a heli-drop of patio materials to climb something that hasn't already been traversed and reversed and linked to death.

I mean I essentially developed a whole circuit at yarncliffe, some of which has fairly tall and proud lines and there’s still plenty more tall and scary lines to go at there. There’s also plenty of underdeveloped areas and quarries if you bother looking, no helicopter required.

Just for the record I very rarely go looking for new lines at popular crags.

[edshakey]

Even in North Wales these days you have to walk up a mountain and down the other side and get a heli-drop of patio materials to climb something that hasn't already been traversed and reversed and linked to death.

There's been a lot of activity in Ogwen recently, would be surprised if you thought this stuff fell into the "up and down a mountain to get there" category. There's obviously some areas that are getting pretty exhausted but there's still a lot of stuff being found!

[andy moles]

Even in North Wales these days you have to walk up a mountain and down the other side and get a heli-drop of patio materials to climb something that hasn't already been traversed and reversed and linked to death.

There's been a lot of activity in Ogwen recently, would be surprised if you thought this stuff fell into the "up and down a mountain to get there" category. There's obviously some areas that are getting pretty exhausted but there's still a lot of stuff being found!

I'm actually pretty familiar with goings on in North Wales*, I was exaggerating a tiny bit for effect. But the distances some of the more intrepid developers have been walking in recent years is pretty impressive.

* in fact early last year I developed a boulder that I can see from my front doorstep in Llanberis.

[Fiend]

On the subject of which (walk-ins), and based on the warm and welcoming vibes in this thread, I'm going to give one of my new (unpublicised) Rhinogs problems 3 stars 

World class situation and view, perfect rock, good line, good moves including a nice long reach to and rockover from a hidden crimp, a bit of techiness, high easy glory finish onto the most ergonomic jug lip I've felt, etc.  Also 

In accordance with my mate's OG question, I shouldn't claim it of course, but Tezza T was there so no chance of that.

[Johnny Brown]

I mean I essentially developed a whole circuit at yarncliffe, some of which has fairly tall and proud lines and there’s still plenty more tall and scary lines to go at there

'Fairly' being the operative word here. What you perhaps need to bear in mind is that almost every vaguely ambitious climber who has ever moved to Sheffield has previously walked round Yarncliffe looking for new rock and thought 'nah'. Even for a veteran developer like Bonjoy the dross outnumbers the good by a significant factor. However most people do appreciate that the quality isn't always obvious until after the thing is cleaned and climbed, so it is rarely possible to just develop the good stuff.

On the old eliminate thing, I think it's worth noting that these were typically developed in sort of scene (see One Summer for Minus Ten etc) which meant random problems sometimes gained significance as benchmarks that a lone development would never have accrued.

[Teaboy]

I was exaggerating a tiny bit for effect. But the distances some of the more intrepid developers have been walking in recent years is pretty impressive.

Especially if they are carrying the current guide up with them.

[edshakey]

I'm actually pretty familiar with goings on in North Wales*, I was exaggerating a tiny bit for effect. But the distances some of the more intrepid developers have been walking in recent years is pretty impressive.

* in fact early last year I developed a boulder that I can see from my front doorstep in Llanberis.

I did think you were a local, would have been surprised if you genuinely believed it was so tapped out!

Nice find on such a nearby boulder - have you by any chance thought of documenting it? 

[Carliios]

I mean I essentially developed a whole circuit at yarncliffe, some of which has fairly tall and proud lines and there’s still plenty more tall and scary lines to go at there

'Fairly' being the operative word here. What you perhaps need to bear in mind is that almost every vaguely ambitious climber who has ever moved to Sheffield has previously walked round Yarncliffe looking for new rock and thought 'nah'. Even for a veteran developer like Bonjoy the dross outnumbers the good by a significant factor. However most people do appreciate that the quality isn't always obvious until after the thing is cleaned and climbed, so it is rarely possible to just develop the good stuff.

On the old eliminate thing, I think it's worth noting that these were typically developed in sort of scene (see One Summer for Minus Ten etc) which meant random problems sometimes gained significance as benchmarks that a lone development would never have accrued.

Sounds like those ambitious climbers didn’t look very hard then. You can go check the logbooks for the stuff I’ve put up at Yarncliffe. Go look at Arête About it, Hobnob, Carlos Torque, Hip Breaker, A Case of Mosstaken Identity, all great line with good feedback from the people who’ve climbed it.

A lot of those lines needed a lot of cleaning and in the end they were totally worth it in my opinion - and the reason why things werent cleaned in the woods isn’t because they were deemed dross it’s because for many years it was considered sensitive access, I’ve had people question me thinking climbing wasn’t allowed there, which I cleared with Simon.