|
|
91
Anyway an E-grade like system for bouldering would nicely show the difference between say, Gritstone Megamix and Mermaid that 7A and 7A does not.
If you were bothered about that you could just add a ! like eg. the North Wales Bouldering guide does. Its also fairly obvious from a simple look at the problems in question which one is highand which one isn't. Anyone using font grades that way hasn't thought about whether it makes sense even remotely and they're using them wrong. Its as simple as that.
92
« Last post by mrjonathanr on May 10, 2024, 09:55:10 am »
What people say and think they are doing, and what they are actually doing, don’t always coincide
Think about the relentless focus on technique in repetitive activities like swimming, sprinting and cycling. Then tell me that it is possible to grade a climb ‘without technique’.
Just because you don’t understand what you are doing doesn’t make the misapprehension true.
93
« Last post by Wellsy on May 10, 2024, 09:54:32 am »
Anyway an E-grade like system for bouldering would nicely show the difference between say, Gritstone Megamix and Mermaid that 7A and 7A does not.
94
« Last post by Wellsy on May 10, 2024, 09:50:32 am »
Maybe so and yet I definitely think that some people are using font grades that way, indeed I know some people are.
I would say that I also think a lot of things are graded without real thought to the technical demands, especially on sandstone rock types, by people who ostensibly would say the grade should incorporate the technical difficulties. Although I think that's also an element of if you are good how can you know how hard something is to someone who isn't? That's not easy to get a good sense of.
95
That has been the opinion given to me by lots of experienced boulderers. I personally think it should and it's stupid if it doesn't, and worse than that it would appear to apply in some cases and not in others, but it's definitely not unusual to hear. In fact the first people who took me outside said, the grade is about physical difficulty, not technical demand.
They're talking complete bollocks. Literally could not be more wrong.
96
« Last post by mrjonathanr on May 10, 2024, 09:45:07 am »
That has been the opinion given to me by lots of experienced boulderers. I personally think it should and it's stupid if it doesn't, and worse than that it would appear to apply in some cases and not in others, but it's definitely not unusual to hear. In fact the first people who took me outside said, the grade is about physical difficulty, not technical demand.
It’s a logical impossibility. Technique is the skill of weight distribution and movement. It can’t be 100% stripped out of dead hangs, let alone an activity as complex as climbing. They’re talking nonsense.
97
« Last post by Wellsy on May 10, 2024, 09:43:04 am »
I think that font grades are let down by only considering the physical difficulty (opinions differ on whether they consider the technical difficulty bit honestly as far as I can tell they don't).
To me this is a bizarre dichotomy and not one I'd ever even considered. For one thing, you can't fully separate strength from technique - the ability to execute a tricky heel hook requires core strength as well as coordination, for example. No amount of brute strength is going to get you up certain things without at least a reasonable application of technique, and the same vice versa, so it seems self evident that both count towards the grade.
I agree with you completely and that's why I think it is ridiculous but still, that is what I have been told.
98
« Last post by Wellsy on May 10, 2024, 09:42:19 am »
That has been the opinion given to me by lots of experienced boulderers. I personally think it should and it's stupid if it doesn't, and worse than that it would appear to apply in some cases and not in others, but it's definitely not unusual to hear. In fact the first people who took me outside said, the grade is about physical difficulty, not technical demand.
99
« Last post by tomtom on May 10, 2024, 09:35:13 am »
Thanks for the reply. We fit the profile and want to enjoy the heritage of landscape and estates the Trust conserves. I think- without solid evidence, of course- that a lot of ‘people like us’ are actually very comfortable with a more honest and nuanced appraisal of the legacy of the past and how it was all built.
The Tufton Street agenda appears the very cliche of culture war nostalgia and I can see the power of capturing an organisation as large and respected as NT. I can’t help but wonder if that’s the limit of their objectives. The Trust holds a huge amount of property. I wonder what they would like to do with it, given an opportunity. There’s a lot of money there.
What do you think they would like to do with it?
No idea mate, just find their relentless pursuit of the NT odd. Perhaps the performative platform it might provide is enough.
To answer this Q Jonathan, the NT has 6 million members. It is by a very long way the largest of any such organisation in Europe.. Its membership is c.10 times that of the membership of ALL the Uk political parties... If I were operating for a right wing think tank/pressure group wanting to make/hijack an agenda, taking control of an organisation with 6 million members would be a masterstroke if I could pull it off...
100
« Last post by mrjonathanr on May 10, 2024, 09:26:41 am »
thanks. Beal Industrie looks a good workhorse rope too.
|
|
Recent Posts