[User deactivated.]

Seems to be a few videos from girls on grit getting called out at the moment, and I'm not sure calling out a group that are probably marginalised in terms of outdoor climbing is the way to go, even if people are just having a laugh.

That would be a problem, but I just went back a few pages and only 3 out of the last 12 posts were about women.

Cue the tautological 'the fact that you're denying there's a problem is itself part of the problem' type arguments.  Easier to just get on hymn sheet - you're a bad man.

On reflection, I take back both my previous posts.

Clearly my first post about grade thresholds was not serious in the slightest, and in the 2nd one I offered no opinion, just counting; however, I don't want to be a part of any barriers to women in climbing, or even just their enjoyment of this forum.

I'm confident that no one in this thread means ill harm. Many of us know each other, so piss taking and arguing amongst ourselves is fine, but it shouldn't be directed towards strangers in minority groups (in climbing). There will of course be some exceptions - if a mega WAD like Janja dabs while cruising Burden of Dreams she would rightly be called out, but perhaps threads like this don't belong in 2023.

[Coops_13]

Filth:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CoTYWPmNsDl/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Does the thread not exist for things like this?

[teestub]

That’s is a stonker, as is the posing as a question and the unrepentant attitude!

[Bradders]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like she's using the normal starting holds with straight arms from where she's sat? If so, it would seem rather harsh to think she should be starting any lower!

^ this!

Just because you can reach most stand start handholds from sitting Bradders

Haha

Sorry I missed this yesterday. Genuine question; I thought the sit went from the big jugs lower down? As in the holds just above where she has her foot to start. Hence why I called it out. It's been a while but I remember them being big holds, easily reached by all from a single pad.

Happy to be corrected.

Seems to be a few videos from girls on grit getting called out at the moment, and I'm not sure calling out a group that are probably marginalised in terms of outdoor climbing is the way to go, even if people are just having a laugh.

Interesting thought. Personally though I don't see why simply being female (or part of any other group or identity) should prevent discussion about the style of an ascent. That speaks to the idea that people who come from the same societal group have the same experiences, which simply isn't true, and is really quite patronising.

But honestly, I just thought she'd started too high.

[Will Hunt]

Bradders has a point. Once a video pops up of someone breaking the rules then everyone copies it. Pointing out the error is the only way to try and address that. I'm not sure whether that applies to this problem as I can't remember. To be honest if you have to start making rules beyond just "start sitting" then it's probably a crap problem.

[Dingdong]

Bradders has a point. Once a video pops up of someone breaking the rules then everyone copies it. Pointing out the error is the only way to try and address that. I'm not sure whether that applies to this problem as I can't remember. To be honest if you have to start making rules beyond just "start sitting" then it's probably a crap problem.

That happened with Blue 48 at Froggatt, sirlockoff put up a video starting with higher hands due to his height and then everyone started stacking pads so they could start it from there and then people started trying to downgrade it even though it’s meant to start on worse, lower hands.

[Johnny Brown]

Noticed in the Brione guidebook they have a section on climbing rules, including 'a sit-start means the buttocks are the last part of the body to leave the ground'. Nice work, although it doesn't suggest what to do if you can't reach the handholds.

[Ross Barker]

I think that's the main inherent issue with sit starts that don't specify holds, it's subject to the variability of height, pad thicknesses, or even the unscrupulous act of stacking some rocks where one will be sitting!

Specified holds or an obvious break are king imo, although that is at the expense of some problems with undercut starts, such as Badgers In The Mist, where getting your arse off the ground is actually a hard move! Does get a bit grey with how many pads people use to make the start a little easelier or even just to reach the holds, so for such examples it might just be that there isn't really a solution. Just have to accept that it's a bit wishy washy and people will always tend to make things as easy as possible in the game of climbing hard stuff.

[Bonjoy]

Think I've said this before in previous threads, IMO specified start holds are often the 'lesser evil' when it comes to a problem and its grade being as close to a level playing field as we can hope to get.
It largely answers the question of how many pads you can start off - as many as you like so long as you pull on with the 'start holds'.
It thereby allows the short to pull on, and stops the tall missing moves.
If you think it makes sense for grades to mean as close to the same thing as possible for all climbers than I think it's worth holding your nose, even if you think it makes something objectively silly (sit starts) a little bit more silly.

PS - Are females still a minority in climbing  ? How close to 50% still classes as a minority (technically males are a minority for the whole UK population at 49%)? Presumably minority has an extra dimension in this context other than strict numerical weighting. I think it's fair to say that even if females are at number terms parity with males (I'm not saying they are) that the grading system does not take them 50% into account when 'grading for the average height'  .

[yetix]

Agreed re starting holds being defined.

As part of the outdoor climbing population I would imagine women are a minority (particularly in bouldering?)

I also think in the context of this forum the number of women on here compared to those percentages is likely low too, I highly doubt 49% of ukb active users are women!

[Teaboy]

I always assumed SDS’s were defined by the start holds (for significant problems, at least). It seems obvious therefore that mats can be used to, erm, level the playing field. Obviously the guides need to make it clear what angle of bend is allowed at the elbow to make an ascent legit…..

[steveri]

Think I've said this before in previous threads, IMO specified start holds are often the 'lesser evil' when it comes to a problem and its grade being as close to a level playing field as we can hope to get.
It largely answers the question of how many pads you can start off - as many as you like so long as you pull on with the 'start holds'.

I've had this debate with myself as someone inflexible and with hip twinges, it's easier off a pad for some problems. The hair shirted ethicist wants to start with cheeks on the ground-ground, the solo boulderer coward wants 2 pads for the higher moves. The compromise is sometimes one pad for the start, 2 layers for where you're likely to hit the ground from higher. It's all just having a laugh on rocks, but you have to have something to occupy the long evenings.

I get a bit annoyed by problems where the crux is using the worst greasy smears and some folded up combo of lower limbs.

Re: women, I reckon it's not infrequently they're in the majority at one wall I use. Will try and pay more attention to the data!

[chrisbrooke]

Think I've said this before in previous threads, IMO specified start holds are often the 'lesser evil' when it comes to a problem and its grade being as close to a level playing field as we can hope to get.
It largely answers the question of how many pads you can start off - as many as you like so long as you pull on with the 'start holds'.
It thereby allows the short to pull on, and stops the tall missing moves.
If you think it makes sense for grades to mean as close to the same thing as possible for all climbers than I think it's worth holding your nose, even if you think it makes something objectively silly (sit starts) a little bit more silly.

PS - Are females still a minority in climbing  ? How close to 50% still classes as a minority (technically males are a minority for the whole UK population at 49%)? Presumably minority has an extra dimension in this context other than strict numerical weighting. I think it's fair to say that even if females are at number terms parity with males (I'm not saying they are) that the grading system does not take them 50% into account when 'grading for the average height'  .

While, you're here then, should Blue 48 start from a low arete pinch then, before slapping up to the decent looking RH edge?
Also, should you be rocking over onto the slab or laying off the arete towards the right?
Not tried it yet, but may as well endeavour to 'get it right' when I do...
Cheers.

[Bonjoy]

It largely answers the question of how many pads you can start off - as many as you like so long as you the fewest necessary to pull on with the 'start holds'.

On second thoughts, the above is probably the better way to level the playing field and minimise the potential for 'milking the rules' to make life easier for yourself.

[Bonjoy]

Think I've said this before in previous threads, IMO specified start holds are often the 'lesser evil' when it comes to a problem and its grade being as close to a level playing field as we can hope to get.
It largely answers the question of how many pads you can start off - as many as you like so long as you pull on with the 'start holds'.
It thereby allows the short to pull on, and stops the tall missing moves.
If you think it makes sense for grades to mean as close to the same thing as possible for all climbers than I think it's worth holding your nose, even if you think it makes something objectively silly (sit starts) a little bit more silly.

PS - Are females still a minority in climbing  ? How close to 50% still classes as a minority (technically males are a minority for the whole UK population at 49%)? Presumably minority has an extra dimension in this context other than strict numerical weighting. I think it's fair to say that even if females are at number terms parity with males (I'm not saying they are) that the grading system does not take them 50% into account when 'grading for the average height'  .

While, you're here then, should Blue 48 start from a low arete pinch then, before slapping up to the decent looking RH edge?
Also, should you be rocking over onto the slab or laying off the arete towards the right?
Not tried it yet, but may as well endeavour to 'get it right' when I do...
Cheers.

Yes, rh low pinch on arete (i.e. below the edge), lh thin undercut. The footblock out right isn't used (obviously).
I topped it going left at the top but it was a scrittle grovel. Any topout is legit in my book. Just stay off the ledges out right for the climbing up to the lip.

[chrisbrooke]

Cheers Jon.

[webbo]

Can you you use an extra pad for every joint you’ve had replaced.

[Andy W]

The problem with designated start holds and variable mat positions is that it sometimes allows better feet positions, for example; AWOL at Tintagel, same start holds, harder with low mats, more mattage allows a heel hook start which is easier. Verdict at Curvier Rampart, same start holds, more mats, higher foot easier, low mats much harder first move. These are just two problems I'm familiar with, which are affected by mat heights. Apologies for rubbish sentences and a caveat that I'm not all that bothered either, but if I do get to Font again  I will utilise this more mats approach 😀

[Bonjoy]

That's why I changed my original statement to the minimum number of pads required to reach the start holds. Adding extra pads after that is milking the rules to make things easier.

[Droyd]

I find it really interesting that, in a pastime that revolves around seeking out arbitrary challenge and difficulty - finding the hardest sequence of moves up a piece of rock rather than the easier one, or even walking around - the people who set these challenges (both FAs and 'the community' as a whole, in terms of there being consensus on things) end up talking about the rules and stopping people from taking the piss. Imagine if you stumbled on a running forum and there was a thread discussing the issue of hundred-metre sprinters sneakily moving the markers for running tracks so as to not have to run as far, and the efforts that people were making to prevent that in the interest of maintaining the integrity of running as a sport/pursuit.

I'm quite torn about the broad issue of 'calling out': on the one hand I am a piece of shit and love gossip and slagging and frequently send mates links to videos with frivolous 'infractions' so that we can sn**ger in private, and do to an extent feel that if someone claims to have done a specific route or problem and they patently haven't (because it doesn't start there, doesn't use those holds, they dabbed) then they just haven't done it. However I also know, deep down, that what other people do has no bearing on me, and dislike the culture of publicly calling people out and telling them that they haven't done it 'to be helpful' or because they 'need to know'. A friend of mine  started a YouTube channel and recently posted a video showing her climbing multiple things that consensus would suggest aren't the grades she wrote down from the guide/UKC, and she got one of those 'helpful' comments pointing this out in a way that I really didn't think there was any need for, and which I know she found it quite upsetting.

Ultimately I think I'm only in favour of it because it scratches that bitchy, slagging-people-off itch that I know I have but is extremely gross, and because doing it via social media allows you to pretend that you're not bringing down a real person and their achievements (which, regardless of how unimpressive they are to you, that person was proud enough of to choose to share them with others - I say this because I think it's much more common for people to punch 'downwards' and call out people climbing lower grades than the reverse). And to be clear whenever I see a new post on this thread I instantly click on it because I bloody love feeling smug and superior to others. But when I do remember that the subject of my sense of smugness has feelings I feel a bit gross, and I don't really see how any lofty ideals relating to the importance of preventing grade inflation, or ensuring that a specific sequence of movements up a particular piece of rock isn't altered such that the majority of people take the path of less resistance, is more important than generally being encouraging and inclusive.

After all, what does it actually matter to any of us? They're only kidding themselves.

[User deactivated.]

Droyd - sounds like the problem for you is just the public shaming and I'd say that's how it is for me with some exceptions (e.g. when punching up or it's someone you know then it's more likely to be ok). I'd still laugh at a beginner dabbing and starting on the wrong holds in a private conversation. This is similar to pub talk that I wouldn't repeat at work or in font of my kids.

[abarro81]

They're only kidding themselves.

This assumes that they haven't logged it somewhere and posted on social media. If either of those happen then they're not only kidding themselves, obviously.

I'm intrigued by what your friend found upsetting? The nature of the way the information was delivered, or the information itself? I can sympathize with the former (I guess this is in line with what Liam is saying), but not really with the latter. Or at least I can see that the latter might be upsetting but that doesn't mean that the information shouldn't be delivered; I'd find it upsetting if Stu downgraded all my hard routes, but it makes sense to know what consensus is - if I don't care about grades then I won't care and if I do then I should know what others' opinions are surely?

[GazM]

Not sure what your getting at with the running analogy Droyd. In that case it would feel fully justified to see people slagging the cheating runners, no?
As for dabbing, as I see it, if someone is posting something on the Internet with a name and/or grade then they're 'opting in' to playing the game within the generally accepted rules. If you break the rules it's fair for people to let you know, so long as they do it in a friendly way.

[Dingdong]

They're only kidding themselves.

This assumes that they haven't logged it somewhere and posted on social media. If either of those happen then they're not only kidding themselves, obviously.

I'm intrigued by what your friend found upsetting? The nature of the way the information was delivered, or the information itself? I can sympathize with the former (I guess this is in line with what Liam is saying), but not really with the latter. Or at least I can see that the latter might be upsetting but that doesn't mean that the information shouldn't be delivered; I'd find it upsetting if Stu downgraded all my hard routes, but it makes sense to know what consensus is - if I don't care about grades then I won't care and if I do then I should know what others' opinions are surely?

I believe this is a reference to a comment I left on her video which said “unfortunately this has been downgraded to 6C” - and was regarding truffle pig. I’ve since deleted the comment as like David mentions I felt bad leaving the comment after the replies I got from her and David but I was just making sure she was aware and wasn’t trying to be a knob. People regularly tell me when stuff I climb has been downgraded and that’s fine, it’s also why I don’t really post videos with grades in them anymore.

[mr chaz]

Droyd - Don't fool yourself. Dabbers don't have feelings, whether that be feelings of shame or the sensation of a microsecond foot plant.