[Dingdong]

Start holds should absolutely be defined where they're not patently obvious.

Different variations of a problem should be given defined grades. for example:

Help the Young - 7A+ (French start)
Help the Young Stand Start - 7B+
Help the Young Sit Start - 7C+
Help the Young Sit Start (No Foot Block) - 8A

In a perfect world, I'd prefer the purest and fullest line to be the one that gets the name, and all the others are lesser variations. This would make the 8A version simply 'Help the Young' in my book. However, it's likely the easiest version of a problem will get done and be named first.

Surely it would be help the young 7C+ With footblock otherwise it’s an eliminate and shit according to a lot of people who frequent this forum 

[Will Hunt]

In a perfect world, I'd prefer the purest and fullest line to be the one that gets the name, and all the others are lesser variations.

Sometimes this will be the case but most of the time it's the opposite for me.
Take the Shelterstone. The problems that start on that great big sidepull jug (Ned's, The Groove) are natural stand starts. The sit adds unpleasant and incongruously difficult climbing. If it were my guide I'd have described them as stands with the sit starts being a note in the text or on a separate line.

There's at least one FA that I've done where I only bothered persisting with the sit start so that some idiot didn't do it later and claim it as an improvement to the original stand. The one that springs to mind is Emerald Arete at Ruin Bank which is a really nice 6A or a 7A sit which might have been good were the crux not having to climb it in such a way as to avoid a dab.

The arete to the left is another example. Sitting (padless) on the block to start makes it a bit harder (weird body positiony pull on) but adds no quality, just mindless difficulty to a perfectly logical stand start. (Incidentally when I recorded the sit I somehow preempted Si Witcher and said "Start with the bones of your arse on the block (the short may use a booster seat on the block, but don't take the mick)."

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNo1WgOD8Dy/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNk4SgljrqV/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

[MischaHY]

I've been wavering on commenting on this thread but I think it's useful to contribute my perspective.

I spent most of my childhood and teenage years being bullied pretty badly for social awkwardness and none-conformity (I suspect due to undiagnosed ADHD amongst other things) and as a result have taken some time to come around to the concept of an enjoyable piss-taking/light mockery amongst friends and acquaintances.

However with that in mind though I've come to see it as a useful and funny part of the social experience - but within certain boundaries which avoid causing misunderstanding and emotional escalation/damage.

For me this works in the following context:

1) You must always have some level of pre-existing personal relationship with the person you're sharing the piss taking with, whether they are the subject of the piss taking or are joking with you about someone else is is the subject.

2) If the piss taking is happening in a public setting, then the subject should be present and taking part in the discussion. If the person is not 'present' then the discussion should not be public.

3) If the subject cannot be guaranteed to be present then the nature of the joking needs to be kept within appropriate boundaries. And easy filter for this is if you would feel comfortable saying what you're writing directly to the face of someone who you've never met previously and without context. If you're someone who typically struggles to read social cues then it's best to be more cautious.

If the piss taking strays outside of these contexts then it's mockery/bullying because the useful and enjoyable social element is lost to one or more of the parties involved and it becomes destructive rather than constructive.

The issue with this current discussion (and in a gentler sense, the overall tone of this thread - but I respect that there is nuance with anything that someone has openly published online) is that it's public but unable to meet rule two and is crossing the line on rule three. This is a difficult situation because most people here are making the valid point that there is a useful component to the information delivered and that using humour as a mechanism to deliver it is a good way to do so.

The key is to make sure that the subject of the social error can feel a little embarrassed but still see the funny side which allows for constructive social growth and group learning as opposed to ostracisation. This then strengthens both the message and the social dynamic.

Happy to be called out but that's my perspective as someone who learnt to love a little fun-poking later in life after much unhappiness.

[MischaHY]

Start holds should absolutely be defined where they're not patently obvious.

Different variations of a problem should be given defined grades. for example:

Help the Young - 7A+ (French start)
Help the Young Stand Start - 7B+
Help the Young Sit Start - 7C+
Help the Young Sit Start (No Foot Block) - 8A

In a perfect world, I'd prefer the purest and fullest line to be the one that gets the name, and all the others are lesser variations. This would make the 8A version simply 'Help the Young' in my book. However, it's likely the easiest version of a problem will get done and be named first.

I agree with Liam that for bouldering it makes the most sense to be clear about starting positions, particularly if this is unclear. If that means marking start holds/positions on a topo then that's how it is. Difficulty is so nuanced in bouldering and I think this is one area where we can learn from indoor climbing which has come up with a good solution to this problem. It allows everyone to have a clearer and more fulfilling experience without as many mistakes being made.

[User deactivated.]

In a perfect world, I'd prefer the purest and fullest line to be the one that gets the name, and all the others are lesser variations.

Sometimes this will be the case but most of the time it's the opposite for me.
Take the Shelterstone. The problems that start on that great big sidepull jug (Ned's, The Groove) are natural stand starts. The sit adds unpleasant and incongruously difficult climbing. If it were my guide I'd have described them as stands with the sit starts being a note in the text or on a separate line.

There's at least one FA that I've done where I only bothered persisting with the sit start so that some idiot didn't do it later and claim it as an improvement to the original stand. The one that springs to mind is Emerald Arete at Ruin Bank which is a really nice 6A or a 7A sit which might have been good were the crux not having to climb it in such a way as to avoid a dab.

The arete to the left is another example. Sitting (padless) on the block to start makes it a bit harder (weird body positiony pull on) but adds no quality, just mindless difficulty to a perfectly logical stand start. (Incidentally when I recorded the sit I somehow preempted Si Witcher and said "Start with the bones of your arse on the block (the short may use a booster seat on the block, but don't take the mick)."

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNo1WgOD8Dy/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNk4SgljrqV/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

I agree with those examples, Will. I said purest and fullest, but should have used or. Sometimes the purest line will take precedence over the fullest. In the example I gave, the easiest version of HTY which gets the most ascents is a French start; clearly this problem doesn't have an obvious jug to start from while standing.

I quite like what Jon has done with the new problems at Bitholmes. One Redeeming Feature gets the name and the block start variations get their caveats in brackets. Ned came along later and did an even harder, yet still logical version, so it was given a new name altogether - Total Redemption.

[Bradders]

Take the Shelterstone. The problems that start on that great big sidepull jug (Ned's, The Groove) are natural stand starts. The sit adds unpleasant and incongruously difficult climbing.

Fun example here of how we're all never going to agree, as I love the sit moves to those problems! My adjectives for them would be tensiony and powerful

Anyway I agree with stated starting positions for things.

I've been wavering on commenting on this thread but I think it's useful to contribute my perspective.

I spent most of my childhood and teenage years being bullied pretty badly for social awkwardness and none-conformity (I suspect due to undiagnosed ADHD amongst other things) and as a result have taken some time to come around to the concept of an enjoyable piss-taking/light mockery amongst friends and acquaintances.

However with that in mind though I've come to see it as a useful and funny part of the social experience - but within certain boundaries which avoid causing misunderstanding and emotional escalation/damage.

For me this works in the following context:

1) You must always have some level of pre-existing personal relationship with the person you're sharing the piss taking with, whether they are the subject of the piss taking or are joking with you about someone else is is the subject.

2) If the piss taking is happening in a public setting, then the subject should be present and taking part in the discussion. If the person is not 'present' then the discussion should not be public.

3) If the subject cannot be guaranteed to be present then the nature of the joking needs to be kept within appropriate boundaries. And easy filter for this is if you would feel comfortable saying what you're writing directly to the face of someone who you've never met previously and without context. If you're someone who typically struggles to read social cues then it's best to be more cautious.

If the piss taking strays outside of these contexts then it's mockery/bullying because the useful and enjoyable social element is lost to one or more of the parties involved and it becomes destructive rather than constructive.

The issue with this current discussion (and in a gentler sense, the overall tone of this thread - but I respect that there is nuance with anything that someone has openly published online) is that it's public but unable to meet rule two and is crossing the line on rule three. This is a difficult situation because most people here are making the valid point that there is a useful component to the information delivered and that using humour as a mechanism to deliver it is a good way to do so.

The key is to make sure that the subject of the social error can feel a little embarrassed but still see the funny side which allows for constructive social growth and group learning as opposed to ostracisation. This then strengthens both the message and the social dynamic.

Happy to be called out but that's my perspective as someone who learnt to love a little fun-poking later in life after much unhappiness.

Really excellent post, nice one.

[chrisbrooke]

I am not entirely sure how well this suits to this thread, but there is also the issue of which starting holds you start with when you climb a non-sit climb,

for example,

The rib in burbage south: you can start like in the attached pic: https://ibb.co/bXhdhYz

basically right hand on the high crimp and start heel on, this will make the problem around V4-5 for me. But that crimp from ground is only accessible when you are taller.

If you do it with other starting holds, for me it felt much harder to the extent that I've never crimped so hard on grit.

I have more examples like that 

should a 2030 guidebook be a digital app that shows every climb outside like it is a board climb with predefined feet and hands, or will we be ok as a community that there are plenty of climbs where taller climbers will be able to start with higher holds  that give them pretty good advance sometimes, to the extent of skipping the crux.

this thread coule be renamed to be a bit wider, 'bring out the pitchforks'

I think in a lot of cases just a few words in the guidebook would clear things up. Such that The Rib could go from: "A fingery classic up the blunt rib usually with a dynamic finish" to: "A fingery classic up the blunt rib usually with a dynamic finish, starting from the RH undercling for the full experience."

Or Dick Williams "The right arete is something of a classic" becomes: "The right arete, starting with hands on the first ledge, is something of a classic". I did this recently and could comfortably reach the LH pinch and RH crimp from standing, making a pleasant 6C+ or so to the top. Adding in the first move by starting with hands on the ledge added a grade or so and seemed like 'the done thing'.

If you're not 'on the scene' and/or haven't grown up as a local, or been trying things with people 'in the know' all you have to go off is a guidebook description and maybe a few beta vids which may or may not be 'right'. And as quite a lot of problems have 'rules', unless they're spelled out it's not always possible to just intuit them.

[tommytwotone]

AKA every trip to Font pre-smartphones / Gite wi-fi when you thought you'd done something hard.

[chrisbrooke]

AKA every trip to Font pre-smartphones / Gite wi-fi when you thought you'd done something hard.

Ha! Well, I started in '97, but only trad, until having kids a few years ago, at which point I discovered bouldering. I was going to write 'trad was always a lot simpler' but then I thought about 'how far off-route is too off-route; how much info is allowed to still be an onsight; can you reverse to the ground without weighting gear and still claim the onsight....' etc, and thought, damn it, it's no simpler.....it's a funny game we play.

I think it boils down to conscience. You know in your heart if you've properly embraced the challenge of the route/problem, or if you've cut corners. And the physical and emotional experience you take away is all that matters anyway (caveats for not damaging the rock etc).

[Johnny Brown]

Start holds should absolutely be defined where they're not patently obvious.

Different variations of a problem should be given defined grades. for example:

Help the Young - 7A+ (French start)
Help the Young Stand Start - 7B+
Help the Young Sit Start - 7C+
Help the Young Sit Start (No Foot Block) - 8A

In a perfect world, I'd prefer the purest and fullest line to be the one that gets the name, and all the others are lesser variations. This would make the 8A version simply 'Help the Young' in my book. However, it's likely the easiest version of a problem will get done and be named first.

Surely it would be help the young 7C+ With footblock otherwise it’s an eliminate and shit according to a lot of people who frequent this forum 

The ‘footblock’ wasn’t used on the FA as it was pretty obvious to me it was part of the floor. If you want to include the ground for your sit start footholds go ahead, but you only get the grade for the stand surely?

[Dingdong]

Start holds should absolutely be defined where they're not patently obvious.

Different variations of a problem should be given defined grades. for example:

Help the Young - 7A+ (French start)
Help the Young Stand Start - 7B+
Help the Young Sit Start - 7C+
Help the Young Sit Start (No Foot Block) - 8A

In a perfect world, I'd prefer the purest and fullest line to be the one that gets the name, and all the others are lesser variations. This would make the 8A version simply 'Help the Young' in my book. However, it's likely the easiest version of a problem will get done and be named first.

Surely it would be help the young 7C+ With footblock otherwise it’s an eliminate and shit according to a lot of people who frequent this forum 

The ‘footblock’ wasn’t used on the FA as it was pretty obvious to me it was part of the floor. If you want to include the ground for your sit start footholds go ahead, but you only get the grade for the stand surely?

I’m personally fine with eliminating stuff to make a climb harder but to me that footblock very much looks like it’s part of the rock? Either way it was more of a commentary on how people on here complain and say that you can’t have eliminates on grit otherwise it’s a shit problem (I do not agree with them)

[Bradders]

Who's said that?

There are plenty of grit eliminates and variations, all well accepted. No, they can't ever be three stars, but that doesn't mean they're shit.

[scragrock]

Ok so my suggestion is Thread name change -

1.Bring oot yer pads
2.Sit start, Shit start
3.I did it my way
4.Sisters Are Doin' It for Themselves

Please add

[Johnny Brown]

Start holds should absolutely be defined where they're not patently obvious.

Different variations of a problem should be given defined grades. for example:

Help the Young - 7A+ (French start)
Help the Young Stand Start - 7B+
Help the Young Sit Start - 7C+
Help the Young Sit Start (No Foot Block) - 8A

In a perfect world, I'd prefer the purest and fullest line to be the one that gets the name, and all the others are lesser variations. This would make the 8A version simply 'Help the Young' in my book. However, it's likely the easiest version of a problem will get done and be named first.

Surely it would be help the young 7C+ With footblock otherwise it’s an eliminate and shit according to a lot of people who frequent this forum 

The ‘footblock’ wasn’t used on the FA as it was pretty obvious to me it was part of the floor. If you want to include the ground for your sit start footholds go ahead, but you only get the grade for the stand surely?

I’m personally fine with eliminating stuff to make a climb harder but to me that footblock very much looks like it’s part of the rock? Either way it was more of a commentary on how people on here complain and say that you can’t have eliminates on grit otherwise it’s a shit problem (I do not agree with them)

It’s below the floor level to the right, and originally there was a loose block which made the right even higher. I really gave it no consideration, it just seemed obvious to me that the break formed a natural dividing line to the extent I didn’t include a rule in the write up, and was surprised when people started using it. Sit starts are contrived, and this is is not unusual.

Let’s not forget that dabs are not primarily caused by climbers, but by shit lowballs. If the crux is avoiding the floor there are probably better uses for your time.

[Dingdong]

Start holds should absolutely be defined where they're not patently obvious.

Different variations of a problem should be given defined grades. for example:

Help the Young - 7A+ (French start)
Help the Young Stand Start - 7B+
Help the Young Sit Start - 7C+
Help the Young Sit Start (No Foot Block) - 8A

In a perfect world, I'd prefer the purest and fullest line to be the one that gets the name, and all the others are lesser variations. This would make the 8A version simply 'Help the Young' in my book. However, it's likely the easiest version of a problem will get done and be named first.

Surely it would be help the young 7C+ With footblock otherwise it’s an eliminate and shit according to a lot of people who frequent this forum 

The ‘footblock’ wasn’t used on the FA as it was pretty obvious to me it was part of the floor. If you want to include the ground for your sit start footholds go ahead, but you only get the grade for the stand surely?

I’m personally fine with eliminating stuff to make a climb harder but to me that footblock very much looks like it’s part of the rock? Either way it was more of a commentary on how people on here complain and say that you can’t have eliminates on grit otherwise it’s a shit problem (I do not agree with them)

It’s below the floor level to the right, and originally there was a loose block which made the right even higher. I really gave it no consideration, it just seemed obvious to me that the break formed a natural dividing line to the extent I didn’t include a rule in the write up, and was surprised when people started using it. Sit starts are contrived, and this is is not unusual.

Let’s not forget that dabs are not primarily caused by climbers, but by shit lowballs. If the crux is avoiding the floor there are probably better uses for your time.

Sorry to disagree but a crux being avoiding a dab just means you need to use your core to avoid the floor or an object which can be just as valid as any other crux such as moving between positions or holding a bad hold. Maybe it’s time to stop calling things crap just because you don’t enjoy them?

I would also say the sit without footblock to help the young is dabby as you have to do a pull up in compression and avoid scraping the floor as you move up the arête? Also if people naturally use a footblock then maybe it was dumb to eliminate it but then not be more expressive about the rules?

[mrjonathanr]

Let’s not forget that dabs are not primarily caused by climbers, but by shit lowballs. If the crux is avoiding the floor there are probably better uses for your time.

You have to wonder what a non-climber would make of 45 pages of people whose hobby is supposedly leaving the floor discussing still being in contact with it.

[Johnny Brown]

  Maybe it’s time to stop calling things crap just because you don’t enjoy them?

Seriously?  Where the fuck would that leave me?

I would also say the sit without footblock to help the young is dabby as you have to do a pull up in compression and avoid scraping the floor as you move up the arête?

I’ve literally never dabbed on it, your feet are solid so it’s your hands that pop. The move off the floor isn’t the hard bit either, it’s the transition into the stand.

Also if people naturally use a footblock then maybe it was dumb to eliminate it but then not be more expressive about the rules?

As I said, it wasn’t a conscious decision by me to eliminate it. And it was a FA, so ‘people’ weren't ‘naturally’ using it. When they did, I pointed out I didn’t use it. Beyond that, I haven’t had a lot to do with ‘being more expressive about the rules’.

[Will Hunt]

Sorry to disagree but a crux being avoiding a dab just means you need to use your core to avoid the floor or an object which can be just as valid as any other crux such as moving between positions or holding a bad hold.

This is just one example but I'm honestly despairing of where climbing is at the moment when it comes to how we guage quality.

[Fiend]

Just catching up on the recent and not-so-recent fun. So let me get this right.

In terms of gender and dab / pad-stack shaming, the previous stats were 2 out of 13 previous shames were women compared to men (of which one was refuted anyway)?? Which would seem to be less than the general ratio of women compared to men in climbing. And in terms of recent discussion participation specifically about the issue of whether dab / pad-stack shaming, it's only 2 contributors who have said they're they're women (of which at one isn't arguing clearly against the shaming)?? Which would seem to be more than the general ration of women to men on regular UKB discussions...

Forgive me for being naive, but it's looking less like a concerted and misogynistic attempt to deliberately put women off bouldering, and more like, errrr, ummm, a thread called Bring Out Your Dabs about generally highlighting when people deliberately post media of themselves dabbing 


Anyway it's quite dismaying that despite the usual presence of Will Hunt and the rest of the crew, this has descended into a farce about semi-log Peak eliminates, rather than fully-log Yorkshire choss. Standards ARE slipping.

[Dingdong]

Sorry to disagree but a crux being avoiding a dab just means you need to use your core to avoid the floor or an object which can be just as valid as any other crux such as moving between positions or holding a bad hold.

This is just one example but I'm honestly despairing of where climbing is at the moment when it comes to how we guage quality.

Quality is a spectrum will. You can have very good quality stuff, meh quality stuff and shit quality stuff. No one said a boulder with a dabby potential is a 3 star line but It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t climb it just because of that. Also I’ve seen a few of your FAs and some have some pretty dabby sections yet you still cleaned and did them so where does that leave you in this argument?

[Fiend]

I've been wavering on commenting on this thread but I think it's useful to contribute my perspective.

I spent most of my childhood and teenage years being bullied pretty badly for social awkwardness and none-conformity (I suspect due to undiagnosed ADHD amongst other things) and as a result have taken some time to come around to the concept of an enjoyable piss-taking/light mockery amongst friends and acquaintances.

However with that in mind though I've come to see it as a useful and funny part of the social experience - but within certain boundaries which avoid causing misunderstanding and emotional escalation/damage.

For me this works in the following context:

1) You must always have some level of pre-existing personal relationship with the person you're sharing the piss taking with, whether they are the subject of the piss taking or are joking with you about someone else is is the subject.

2) If the piss taking is happening in a public setting, then the subject should be present and taking part in the discussion. If the person is not 'present' then the discussion should not be public.

3) If the subject cannot be guaranteed to be present then the nature of the joking needs to be kept within appropriate boundaries. And easy filter for this is if you would feel comfortable saying what you're writing directly to the face of someone who you've never met previously and without context. If you're someone who typically struggles to read social cues then it's best to be more cautious.

If the piss taking strays outside of these contexts then it's mockery/bullying because the useful and enjoyable social element is lost to one or more of the parties involved and it becomes destructive rather than constructive.

The issue with this current discussion (and in a gentler sense, the overall tone of this thread - but I respect that there is nuance with anything that someone has openly published online) is that it's public but unable to meet rule two and is crossing the line on rule three. This is a difficult situation because most people here are making the valid point that there is a useful component to the information delivered and that using humour as a mechanism to deliver it is a good way to do so.

The key is to make sure that the subject of the social error can feel a little embarrassed but still see the funny side which allows for constructive social growth and group learning as opposed to ostracisation. This then strengthens both the message and the social dynamic.

Happy to be called out but that's my perspective as someone who learnt to love a little fun-poking later in life after much unhappiness.

Ooops skimmed over this before but worth replying to as unlike some of the other responses it's an actual attempt to analyse bullying and look at boundaries and rationale and form a coherent argument.

Good post, good argument, but it misses the key factor that the subject has deliberately chosen to post (or promote) media to an unlimited public audience showing their dabbing (or whatever). That very public showing I think negates some of your criteria, and makes it quite different to bullying about non-promoted issues. I doubt anyone would advocate trying to hack into someone's private videos or scroll through their phone to find unshared photos to then publicly highlight the subject's dabbing!!

Edit: Okay this video is unlisted, but JF , WTF did a skinny cunt 65kg waif need to lie down for a rest on this:

[Will Hunt]

Sorry to disagree but a crux being avoiding a dab just means you need to use your core to avoid the floor or an object which can be just as valid as any other crux such as moving between positions or holding a bad hold.

This is just one example but I'm honestly despairing of where climbing is at the moment when it comes to how we guage quality.

Quality is a spectrum will. You can have very good quality stuff, meh quality stuff and shit quality stuff. No one said a boulder with a dabby potential is a 3 star line but It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t climb it just because of that. Also I’ve seen a few of your FAs and some have some pretty dabby sections yet you still cleaned and did them so where does that leave you in this argument?

Maybe I've misunderstood. I read that as JB saying that dabbiness seriously compromises quality and you saying that it didn't. I agree that a dabby move doesn't necessarily make something complete shit, but it will normally make something much much less worthwhile. I'd expect that most stuff I've written up where the hard bit is not dabbing would be written up accordingly.

[Dingdong]

Sorry to disagree but a crux being avoiding a dab just means you need to use your core to avoid the floor or an object which can be just as valid as any other crux such as moving between positions or holding a bad hold.

This is just one example but I'm honestly despairing of where climbing is at the moment when it comes to how we guage quality.

Quality is a spectrum will. You can have very good quality stuff, meh quality stuff and shit quality stuff. No one said a boulder with a dabby potential is a 3 star line but It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t climb it just because of that. Also I’ve seen a few of your FAs and some have some pretty dabby sections yet you still cleaned and did them so where does that leave you in this argument?

Maybe I've misunderstood. I read that as JB saying that dabbiness seriously compromises quality and you saying that it didn't. I agree that a dabby move doesn't necessarily make something complete shit, but it will normally make something much much less worthwhile. I'd expect that most stuff I've written up where the hard bit is not dabbing would be written up accordingly.

All good. My point was that the dabbyness of a climb can be just as much of a crux as any other type of move and doesn’t mean a climb isn’t worth doing, regardless of quality. But there are 2/3 star lines out there that can have dabby elements too.

[Fultonius]

Sorry to disagree but a crux being avoiding a dab just means you need to use your core to avoid the floor or an object which can be just as valid as any other crux such as moving between positions or holding a bad hold.

This is just one example but I'm honestly despairing of where climbing is at the moment when it comes to how we guage quality.

Quality is a spectrum will. You can have very good quality stuff, meh quality stuff and shit quality stuff. No one said a boulder with a dabby potential is a 3 star line but It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t climb it just because of that. Also I’ve seen a few of your FAs and some have some pretty dabby sections yet you still cleaned and did them so where does that leave you in this argument?

Maybe I've misunderstood. I read that as JB saying that dabbiness seriously compromises quality and you saying that it didn't. I agree that a dabby move doesn't necessarily make something complete shit, but it will normally make something much much less worthwhile. I'd expect that most stuff I've written up where the hard bit is not dabbing would be written up accordingly.

All good. My point was that the dabbyness of a climb can be just as much of a crux as any other type of move and doesn’t mean a climb isn’t worth doing, regardless of quality. But there are 2/3 star lines out there that can have dabby elements too.

Having dabby elements and the crux being avoiding a dab are totally different ends of the spectrum. IMO the former might take a 3star to a 2 star. The latter renders it  just my 2p

[chrisbrooke]

Steep Traverse at Plantation springs to mind as a 3* problem where the crux is not dabbing.