1

diet, training and injuries / Re: One for the runners

« Last post by Stabbsy on Today at 10:15:30 pm »

Then all the other shoes companies would all have to follow suit which I don't see happening.

When I say they need to close the box, I mean World Athletics, not Nike. Clearly one company wouldn’t unilaterally get rid of a massive performance advantage.

I've still to see why it's any difference in progress in climbing shoe design, which (I guess) everyone on here grasps with both hands. Or should we all still be wearing PAs?

I understand the argument, but to me it’s a false equivalence. I think it’s because there’s a massive element of mechanical advantage from carbon shoes - the carbon is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting.

If someone made “Crimping Hooks (TM)” - steel hooks that fit under your fingers to supplement your finger strength on the hardest moves - would you be using them or is it aid climbing?

2

diet, training and injuries / Re: One for the runners

« Last post by webbo on Today at 10:09:23 pm »

They could, but I don’t think they will. I presume that’s what Duma is getting when he says running has been sold to Nike. For them to close the box, they need to reverse a previous decision and admit it was wrong.

Cycling did this with the world hour record. They disallowed all the records done with aero bars and the likes and would only allow equipment similar to what Eddie Merckx used in 1972.
However they have since relaxed the equipment rules and you are now allowed to use what is allowed in track racing. However what was used by Graham Obree and Chris Boardman would not be allowed. Although Boardman went on to break Merckx’s record on similar equipment.

3

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by abarro81 on Today at 09:57:34 pm »

While I see what JB is getting at, in 20 years climbing and 10,000 hours on forums I've never encountered the proposal that an Ex y is a y grade boulder followed by an Ex... Does that make Pilgrimage with the chossy top groove VS 7a?

I don't think this is willfully ignoring context, it's just an idea I've never encountered, and probably makes no sense in various examples (e.g., if a route is a trivial approach to a 7B+ boulder with baby bouncer protection to a scary E4, is that also E4 7a or is it now E8 7a??!)

4

diet, training and injuries / Re: One for the runners

« Last post by SA Chris on Today at 09:23:13 pm »

Then all the other shoes companies would all have to follow suit which I don't see happening.

https://www.runningshoesguru.com/2024/04/adidas-almost-completely-sweeps-the-2024-london-marathon-podium/

I've still to see why it's any difference in progress in climbing shoe design, which (I guess) everyone on here grasps with both hands. Or should we all still be wearing PAs?

5

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by Johnny Brown on Today at 09:21:13 pm »

many people use E grades (particularly those like yourself who don't spend much time climbing safe long cracks etc).

Many others say how hard is it overall…

Many use them both ways. Grades only make sense in the context of the rock they are applied to. That context is always obvious from the guide or the crag, and within that context the grade is just shorthand for various properties of the route, the properties varying with the route. That’s it.

But people sometimes ignore that context. Why would they do that, when the two things are inseparable? Usually because they are hoping to reduce the comparison of apples and oranges to two numbers. This usually falls down, because there are lots of styles of climbing, and lots of types of climbers, and while (I have just discovered) some climbs are harder than others, not in a way that you can predict without knowing the climber and the climb, and even then not reliably. You’re back to context again: the map is not the territory and the grade is not the climb. (Which is what Shark used to think, so let’s not take his views too seriously.)

And I’ve done plenty of long safe cracks thank you very much, although a lot of them were graded YDS. On some E plus tech would have given me more information up front, but on long routes the usual NA approach of grading sub-sections on the topo is better anyway.

6

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by Fiend on Today at 09:02:30 pm »

I bloody love a THE UK TRAD GRADE IS UTTERLY TERRIBLE / COMPLETELY WONDERFUL FOR GRADING TRAD ROUTES debate, great fodder for "Someone is wrong on the internet". Can we have a topic split and really let rip, please??

7

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by Ru on Today at 08:14:29 pm »

I'm with JB on this one. If a grade has to describe how hard something is, E4 7a for WSS makes no sense. If a grade has to describe what to expect, then it works perfectly.

8

diet, training and injuries / Re: One for the runners

« Last post by Stabbsy on Today at 07:56:32 pm »

They could, but I don’t think they will. I presume that’s what Duma is getting when he says running has been sold to Nike. For them to close the box, they need to reverse a previous decision and admit it was wrong.

9

get involved: access, environment, BMC / Re: Changing the BMC

« Last post by shark on Today at 07:38:45 pm »

Don’t forget grant income. The expenditure and shared costs apportionment is in excess of £1million pa.

10

diet, training and injuries / Re: One for the runners

« Last post by lukeyboy on Today at 07:23:15 pm »

It's similar to the issue in swimming with skinsuits, though perhaps not quite as pronounced a performance advantage as that. A lot of World records were quickly broken, but interestingly Pandoras box was closed again and WRs with those suits no longer stand.

There's nothing to stop the same thing happening in running, apart from it being too much of a U turn and it's been too long. But in theory they still could if they wanted to.