[andy moles]

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

Documented the shit out of it, even gave one of the problems 3* 

No eliminates established there yet, though the one person I know that's repeated the problems thought one of the finishes was too escapable for how scary it felt so that one lost a star.

Potential hard proj up there for the very strong 

[petejh]

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.

If it's on those stepped terraces overlooking tremadog/porthmadog at the far north end of the Rhinogs then I did them in around 2009 while housesitting for a friend in Llanbedr. Didn't think it worth documenting but glad you had a good time on them.

[Bradders]

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.

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.

Just to back Carlos up here, I find that kind of comment a bit off JB. It comes across as sneeringly superior and is illustrative of a lot of the reaction to new problems at lower grades being established by new climbers in the Peak. You certainly don't see the same reaction to the likes of Jim Pope, Sam Lawson or Bonjoy climbing harder new things, and I think it's quite unfair. Especially when there have been some very good problems done.

That's not to say there isn't plenty of dross being documented too, including by Carlos. To balance things out, I think the problems Twisting in the Rain and Singing in the Rain are amusing examples, both essentially climbing the same line but eliminating different things, with Singing being done and written up later as an eliminate despite it actually ending up as an easier sequence and using holds (and kneebars) which aren't used on Twisting!

Maybe it's that with all the dross it's harder to see the wood for the trees. The point I'm making though is it seems a shame to piss on the chips of new climbers who are keen and excited about getting out and doing things, even if some end up being a bit log.

[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.

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.

Just to back Carlos up here, I find that kind of comment a bit off JB. It comes across as sneeringly superior and is illustrative of a lot of the reaction to new problems at lower grades being established by new climbers in the Peak. You certainly don't see the same reaction to the likes of Jim Pope, Sam Lawson or Bonjoy climbing harder new things, and I think it's quite unfair. Especially when there have been some very good problems done.

That's not to say there isn't plenty of dross being documented too, including by Carlos. To balance things out, I think the problems Twisting in the Rain and Singing in the Rain are amusing examples, both essentially climbing the same line but eliminating different things, with Singing being done and written up later as an eliminate despite it actually ending up as an easier sequence and using holds (and kneebars) which aren't used on Twisting!

Maybe it's that with all the dross it's harder to see the wood for the trees. The point I'm making though is it seems a shame to piss on the chips of new climbers who are keen and excited about getting out and doing things, even if some end up being a bit log.

Aha thanks for the backup Nick, though I will point out that Singing in the Wind isn't actually an easier sequence, I sandbagged that one quite a lot on purpose. But we can basically look at Jon's new line Under the Weather which is also an eliminate but was put up as a seperate harder line. I would say Windy is more akin to a lime training venue than an Anston for example so don't see to many issues with having eliminates logged. None are starred either 

[36chambers]

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.

Just had a flick through UKC, do people genuinely think Hip Breaker is worthy of 3 stars? Was this one of the climbs being bin voted?

[CapitalistPunter]

It climbs very very nicely but obviously isn't super aesthetic. I'd say it's worthy of two stars.

[Carliios]

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.

Just had a flick through UKC, do people genuinely think Hip Breaker is worthy of 3 stars? Was this one of the climbs being bin voted?

I’d say it’s more like 1 star but I was definitely trigger happy with stars when I first started putting stuff up as I wasn’t as aware about stars being so important. It’s a good line regardless!

[SA Chris]

Just had a flick through UKC, do people genuinely think Hip Breaker is worthy of 3 stars?

It looks like it's only had 2 votes, assume Carlos and CP?

[Moo]

What’s the rational for awarding stars ? Is just how you feel about the problem  or is it better to have a points system, eg climbs well but has shit rock and looks shit might get one star if it’s really really good climbing.

If it’s awesome climbing on awesome rock and looks awesome eg crescent arête then it’d be 3 stars   

It’d just seem to make more sense to me if there was some decent rational behind how we were attributing stars etc. 

[yetix]

I think(?) I remember in a podcast monkey boy saying he looks for quality movement, an aesthetic line and history in problems. For me that makes up 3 potential stars, but I'm sure others have very different ways of looking at it.

Re history something I guess can gain history somewhat quickly in the right circumstances (e.g. Ilse sitter was a historical project for some time etc)

But idk that's just how I've thought about things for a little while since hearing the podcast. Not suggesting that's the correct or only way to attribute stars (which will always be super subjective)

[SA Chris]

Indeed, history doesn't necessarily mean it's an old problem. History can be "only 2 previous ascents, by prolific climber X and prolific climber Y, both whom said it was hard but excellent climbing" .

[andy moles]

From a couple of guidebooks pulled off my shelf.

The SMC (which is admittedly somewhat fuddy-duddy and not remotely an authority on bouldering) defines its star ratings thus:

No star routes may be good although nothing special, or eliminate in line, or information may be lacking. Only a few are worthless or unpleasant.
* Good climbing, but the route may lack line, situation or balance.
** A good route but lacking one or more of the features that make it a climb of quality.
*** An outstanding route of the highest quality, combining superb climbing with line, character and situation.
**** The best climbs of their class in Scotland.

The CC (also admittedly not known for being on point) offers:

Some climbers wrongly assume that unstarred routes are not worthwhile. The vast majority of unstarred climbs in this book are worth doing. Poor climbs are specifically described as such.
* A one star route is of significant quality for the crag.
** A two star route is of significant quality for the guidebook area.
*** A three star route bears comparison with the best routes in other areas.

[Fiend]

Petejh, aye whatever. It might be the similar area but there's a lot of rock up there and even if it does vaguely coincide then someone has to document it (oooops, there's the "document everything" again) for the new book.

Going back to the ever-entertaining Carliios show, my understanding of the Yarncliffe stuff was that there could well have been great stuff discovered because it's been previously banned for ages (and thus would also need a fair bit of unearthing) which seems pretty simple.


For quality I refer the honourable gentlemen back to my previous answer which had a bit of science in it. There's various aspects which should be pretty obvious.

[SA Chris]

From a couple of guidebooks pulled off my shelf.

Thanks, save me typing, I just had a look in SMC HOS.

Rockfax Lakes Bouldering is a bit more succint;

* - a good problem
** - a very good problem
*** - an excellent problem

[Carliios]

From a couple of guidebooks pulled off my shelf.

Thanks, save me typing, I just had a look in SMC HOS.

Rockfax Lakes Bouldering is a bit more succint;

* - a good problem
** - a very good problem
*** - an excellent problem

Right succint yet incredibly vague, because we refer back to what if something is an excellent problem but looks like choss?

[grimer]

Nice discussion.

It got me thinking that if you took, say, the Plantation as an example, what would the stars be.

In my opinion,

***
Deliverance and the arete to its left, climbed on the right.

**
Green Travese
Steep Traverse
The Hourglass

*
Glass Hour
Deliverance arete on its left

And everything else are just really nice no-star problems that i love

[petejh]

Stars imo are best used as a relative rating in a national context, as that’s the playing field most climbers play on over a lifetime of climbing. Very few people restrict themselves to one area or crag so it makes little sense to me to give something 3-stars relative to a crag or guidebook area.
The CC chimes with what we put in NWL regarding stars:
0: worthwhile unless stated otherwise. Or no info.
1: standout quality for the crag
2: standout quality for the guidebook area.
3: standout quality nationally. Or anything by Robins as he gives everything he does 3 stars 🤩


Of course ‘quality’ is and always will be subjective but there are commonalities most people can agree on.

[teestub]

* A one star route is of significant quality for the crag.
** A two star route is of significant quality for the guidebook area.
*** A three star route bears comparison with the best routes in other areas.

This has always been my understanding for boulders, i.e. 3 stars should be up there with the best in the country and 2 stars should still be an amazing problem.

[Bradders]

* A one star route is of significant quality for the crag.
** A two star route is of significant quality for the guidebook area.
*** A three star route bears comparison with the best routes in other areas.

This has always been my understanding for boulders, i.e. 3 stars should be up there with the best in the country and 2 stars should still be an amazing problem.

Yes likewise. Although what's amazed me about this discussion is that people actually pay any attention whatsoever to stars on UKC....they've always been wrong!

It's amazing how many new 'problems' have been added lately. Obsessive logging (which is me included!) seems to make people reluctant to walk away empty handed. I try not to care but the amount of inflated starring is annoying.

Here's an example that annoyed me https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/caley_crags-540/one_squirrels-641886?lgn=113303

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 

A lot of this discussion also seems to have come down to "people being wrong on the internet", which clearly we should all get over.

However, that's really hard when they are clearly SO. FUCKING. WRONG!!! I mean my god, so many things are wrong with that; the grammar fail on the name (One Squirrel, surely!!), the obvious desperation of people being completely unable to end a session without ticking something/anything, the massive over grade (I remember it being very steady from there), the fact someone's given it 2 stars, the fact other people have said 3 stars.....aaaaarrrrgghhh.

[SA Chris]

One Squirrels reminds me of the band in the movie Airheads called The Lone Rangers.

[chrisbrooke]

I think a fair bit of it might come down to your climbing background. I'm a trad climber of 20+ years, only getting into bouldering 'late' in my climbing career (had kids, moved to Sheffield, got into bouldering for convenience sake, loved it, now only bouldered for about 4 years).

Having climbed all over the UK, Europe, further afield etc, I will look for 3* routes in new areas to get the best out of a visit. I expect them to climb an aesthetic line, or striking feature, to have enjoyable, challenging movement and ideally to have some historical (local or national) significance. Well, some rich combination of all those things preferably.

I've come to bouldering with that mentality, so if climbing a 3* boulder I expected it (as described up-thread) to be a well-regarded, high-quality line, with engaging climbing up a good feature, with some history or kudos attached. My observation as a relative new-comer, is that it's just not the case and not quite comparable to the trad 'starring ethic' (if you will). The different aspects carry different weightings in bouldering. I think that's largely a function of the relative youth of the sport. You can climb 3* trad routes that are nearly 100 years old and that's just not the case with boulders.

Anyway, it might be the case that relative new-comers to climbing generally, and bouldering specifically, (moving from indoor bouldering walls to outside etc, rather than the hillwalking-scrambling-tradclimbing-bouldering route that some of us old gits might have had), however passionate, don't quite have the same understanding of the star system, or at least interpret it quite differently.

FWIW, if I'm looking on UKC at a new area I will look for 2-3* problems to start on. If I click on them and see they've had < 3 ascents, were climbed recently and still are given stars I tend automatically to dismiss them as the product of enthusiasm/hubris of the FA. Perhaps unfair, but I'm strongly motivated by 'ticking classics' and am very time poor, so try to be as selective as possible.

[Teaboy]

I will point out that Singing in the Wind isn't actually an easier sequence, I sandbagged that one quite a lot on purpose.

Why? You seem to be get pretty upset that people have a different opinion of your problems to you but you admit to mis-grading and mis-attributing stars.
Regarding what constitutes a classic, there are no rules other than ‘it is not dictated by the first ascensionist’.

[Will Hunt]

what if something is an excellent problem but looks like choss?

Contradiction in terms.

[teestub]

what if something is an excellent problem but looks like choss?

Contradiction in terms.

Agree. I’m sure a climb on choss could have great movement (until the holds fell off) but if the rock quality is poor it can’t be an ‘excellent problem’. 1 star max for me.

This of course is not true for trad, where apparently you can have routes entirely made of cheese that are still 3 star 😄

[SA Chris]

e.g. Wrecker's Slab. I love Crusher Bartlett's description of it; "... this climb is composed of thousands of finger to fist size teeth, slotted together. In the best traditions of British dentistry, these teeth are not very firmly attached, and any given one can be extracted and thrown a way"