UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => bouldering => Topic started by: petejh on March 17, 2021, 11:51:22 am
-
The search for the holy grail of a 3-star grit 8b remains?
Have you not been to Yorkshire?
Tongue was slightly in cheek..
High Fidelity? Cypher? The Ace? All 3 stars for quality or just for hardness and who did them? Genuine question.
-
The search for the holy grail of a 3-star grit 8b remains?
Have you not been to Yorkshire?
Tongue was slightly in cheek..
High Fidelity? Cypher? All 3 stars for quality or just for hardness and who did them? Genuine question.
Fucking hell, what does a problem have to do round here to get three stars? Three stars isn't really supposed to be some sort of ultra-rare Michelin star, it just indicates that a problem would be something that might draw the attention of someone visiting from a different area (at least, that's my understanding).
-
The search for the holy grail of a 3-star grit 8b remains?
Have you not been to Yorkshire?
Tongue was slightly in cheek..
High Fidelity? Cypher? The Ace? All 3 stars for quality or just for hardness and who did them? Genuine question.
Haha likewise.
But yeah if Cypher, High Fidelity, Lanny Bassham and Rhythm aren't worth all the stars for any measure you could think of then I don't know what is!
-
Fucking hell, what does a problem have to do round here to get three stars? Three stars isn't really supposed to be some sort of ultra-rare Michelin star, it just indicates that a problem would be something that might draw the attention of someone visiting from a different area (at least, that's my understanding).
Not mine - in NWL I gave climbs 3 stars if I considered they were exceptional quality relative to stuff in a national context - i.e. whole of the UK, 2 stars if excellent quality relative to stuff within a regional context (i.e. whole of N.Wales), 1 star if exceptional quality within the guidebook area (i.e. whole of N.Wales Limestone).
A lot of people thought it was harsh, but a lot of people also thought it was how it should be. I think I was part reacting against what I perceived to be the devaluing of quality by other guidebooks, and first ascentionists with vested interests in their babies being the most beautiful. Maybe I was a little bit harsh but I still think I mostly got it right*, provided the reader can accept 1 star is a good route.
Of course it depends on having a good grasp of what the whole of the UK, or the whole of N.Wales or the NWL area has to offer. I'm far from all-knowing but I think I have a good rounded knowledge when it comes to routes.
(* I definitely fucked up giving BB's 'The Beauty' only one star though!)
Anyway OT.
-
3 stars if I considered they were exceptional quality relative to stuff in a national context - i.e. whole of the UK, 2 stars if excellent quality relative to stuff within a regional context (i.e. whole of N.Wales), 1 star if exceptional quality within the guidebook area (i.e. whole of N.Wales Limestone).
I thought this was how it was meant to work (although in my head 1 star was for good in context of the crag, rather than guidebook) - Though obviously UKC has fucked it up, along with so many things (see V to font below 7A etc etc)
-
Fucking hell, what does a problem have to do round here to get three stars? Three stars isn't really supposed to be some sort of ultra-rare Michelin star, it just indicates that a problem would be something that might draw the attention of someone visiting from a different area (at least, that's my understanding).
Not mine - in NWL I gave climbs 3 stars if I considered they were exceptional quality relative to stuff in a national context - i.e. whole of the UK, 2 stars if excellent quality relative to stuff within a regional context (i.e. whole of N.Wales), 1 star if exceptional quality within the guidebook area (i.e. whole of N.Wales Limestone).
A lot of people thought it was harsh, but a lot of people also thought it was how it should be. I think I was part reacting against what I perceived to be the devaluing of quality by other guidebooks, and first ascentionists with vested interests in their babies being the most beautiful. Maybe I was a little bit harsh but I still think I mostly got it right*, provided the reader can accept 1 star is a good route.
Of course it depends on having a good grasp of what the whole if the UK or the whole of N.Wales or the NWL area has to offer, I'm far from all-knowing but I think I have a good rounded knowledge when it comes to routes.
(* I definitely fucked up giving BB's 'The Beauty' only one star though!)
Anyway OT.
I don't think that's unreasonable but would say that there's a good argument in there for creating a four star system, with the four-star routes being those national/world ultra classics. The three star system as it's generally applied doesn't leave much resolution for distinguishing between the merely extremely good and those which have something extra - an aura around them. Maybe the fourth star is superfluous because those routes that would get one don't need stars to promote them - their reputation speaks for itself. The system you describe accounts for that but doesn't offer much resolution at the lower end - which is arguably quite important in a definitive guide. It's nice to be able to separate out routes that aren't really worthwhile unless you really have done everything else, and those which have some merit for the local.
-
3 stars if I considered they were exceptional quality relative to stuff in a national context - i.e. whole of the UK, 2 stars if excellent quality relative to stuff within a regional context (i.e. whole of N.Wales), 1 star if exceptional quality within the guidebook area (i.e. whole of N.Wales Limestone).
I thought this was how it was meant to work (although in my head 1 star was for good in context of the crag, rather than guidebook) - Though obviously UKC has fucked it up, along with so many things (see V to font below 7A etc etc)
This would be problematic as assignment of one star would be heavily skewed by the size and average quality at the crag. A very good route at a crag with many good routes might get no stars, while an objectively poor route at a poor crag might get one star. I think it's more helpful for people evaluating whether or not to visit a new crag if stars are assigned in principle on an equal basis, at least within any given guide.
Will - I agree. It's unhelpful when choosing crags/routes if say >65% of everything is lumped into a no star category, when you know this includes a very wide range of quality. IMO starring should have the highest resolution that the knowledge pool allows. Ideally any knowledge gaps should be acknowledged - I quite liked the old dagger symbols for this.
-
Fucking hell, what does a problem have to do round here to get three stars? Three stars isn't really supposed to be some sort of ultra-rare Michelin star, it just indicates that a problem would be something that might draw the attention of someone visiting from a different area (at least, that's my understanding).
Not mine - in NWL I gave climbs 3 stars if I considered they were exceptional quality relative to stuff in a national context - i.e. whole of the UK, 2 stars if excellent quality relative to stuff within a regional context (i.e. whole of N.Wales), 1 star if exceptional quality within the guidebook area (i.e. whole of N.Wales Limestone).
A lot of people thought it was harsh, but a lot of people also thought it was how it should be. I think I was part reacting against what I perceived to be the devaluing of quality by other guidebooks, and first ascentionists with vested interests in their babies being the most beautiful. Maybe I was a little bit harsh but I still think I mostly got it right*, provided the reader can accept 1 star is a good route.
Of course it depends on having a good grasp of what the whole if the UK or the whole of N.Wales or the NWL area has to offer, I'm far from all-knowing but I think I have a good rounded knowledge when it comes to routes.
(* I definitely fucked up giving BB's 'The Beauty' only one star though!)
Anyway OT.
I don't think that's unreasonable but would say that there's a good argument in there for creating a four star system, with the four-star routes being those national/world ultra classics. The three star system as it's generally applied doesn't leave much resolution for distinguishing between the merely extremely good and those which have something extra - an aura around them. Maybe the fourth star is superfluous because those routes that would get one don't need stars to promote them - their reputation speaks for itself. The system you describe accounts for that but doesn't offer much resolution at the lower end - which is arguably quite important in a definitive guide. It's nice to be able to separate out routes that aren't really worthwhile unless you really have done everything else, and those which have some merit for the local.
There is a 4 star system in use in North Wales 😉
-
In some books. In others they've done away with it completely. I think there's a better argument for reducing the use of the star system than extending it. Reduce it to a single star or none, and you can highlight quality without automatic honeypotting and allowing for variations in taste etc.
-
I think reducing the proportion of climbs that recieve stars is almost guaranteed to increase honeypotting.
-
I think less stars is better.
There has certainly been in inflation in stars in guidebooks generally.
I thought 3 star routes weren't that common, at least that was my understanding when I started climbing, now it seems they're not.
-
It doesn't necessarily mean the books are suggesting things are better than they used to be (though obviously some areas have had a lot of development). There's just more differentiation on the basis of quality, often based on a superior level of knowledge (pre-internet guide writers had a much smaller knowledge base to work from). Yes, the brackets/goalposts may have shifted somewhat. Look at votes on logbooks and you'll see that the climbing public are infinitely more generous with stars than guidebook writers ever should or will be.
What is the upside of heavily conservative starring, other than some vague minimalist aesthetic value?
-
It spreads the baseline?
-
Anyone considered slash stars? :look:
-
So many thread splits. You must need a lie down, Shark :ang:
Also Pantontino has snuck in a "1.5 stars?" into NWB3.1, the rascal.
-
Excellent, the weekly downgrade thread has moved on to stars. Count me in! :goodidea:
-
Also it's worth noting that North Wales Limestone does have the full compliment of stars overall, it's just most of them have been dumped on The Diamond and a few other of Pete's recently developed favourites / hidden gems ;) ;D
-
I'd support strawberries over stars, as per the Frankenjura guides.
-
It doesn't necessarily mean the books are suggesting things are better than they used to be (though obviously some areas have had a lot of development). There's just more differentiation on the basis of quality, often based on a superior level of knowledge (pre-internet guide writers had a much smaller knowledge base to work from). Yes, the brackets/goalposts may have shifted somewhat. Look at votes on logbooks and you'll see that the climbing public are infinitely more generous with stars than guidebook writers ever should or will be.
What is the upside of heavily conservative starring, other than some vague minimalist aesthetic value?
I guess I get wound up by going somewhere like the Wye Valley and it's a 3 star fest in places vs Llanberis Pass where there are genuinely loads of 3 star routes. I think it would be good to have consistently nationally on the 3 star front
-
I guess I get wound up by going somewhere like the Wye Valley and it's a 3 star fest in places vs Llanberis Pass where there are genuinely loads of 3 star routes. I think it would be good to have consistently nationally on the 3 star front
I'd much rather see stars used to differentiate quality over the local area, or perhaps even crag specific. Else you end up with no stars in your Wye Valley guide (for example..) and shit load in North Wales mountain areas. If the guide is decent, it will give you an idea in the descriptions how each crag generally ranks locally, then the stars give an idea within that.
-
So maybe the split star rating actually needs to be a double rating - stars per guide and stars per UK....
-
I love looking at old guidebooks and seeing what get stars. When I did the Peak Area quiz with Dave I came up with a round based on starred peak guidebook routes (sample questions: after Stanage, which Peak crag has the most *** E1s? & Name any two of the nine routes get three stars in the 1976 Chew Valley book) not many people did well which I think highlights the subjective nature.
I think the importance of stars is directly proportional to the amount of text about each route. Having said that, If I see a guide that’s extremely stingy with stars I don’t think “wow, these guidebook writers are so cool due to their high standards” it just puts me off going.
Look at votes on logbooks and you'll see that the climbing public are infinitely more generous with stars than guidebook writers ever should or will be.
Quite a lot of the humour on the amazing Best of UKC Instagram account comes from the fact that no matter what horrors or tribulations the comments describe, they’re usually followed up with “nice route”. :lol:
-
I think reducing the proportion of climbs that recieve stars is almost guaranteed to increase honeypotting.
I didn't suggest that. Simplest implementation would be all starred routes get 1 star, rest none. That would spread the load I think, and perhaps reduce the perceived worth differential between the 3* classics and the no stars. But there will always be the list tickers.
-
I guess I get wound up by going somewhere like the Wye Valley and it's a 3 star fest in places vs Llanberis Pass where there are genuinely loads of 3 star routes. I think it would be good to have consistently nationally on the 3 star front
I'd much rather see stars used to differentiate quality over the local area, or perhaps even crag specific. Else you end up with no stars in your Wye Valley guide (for example..) and shit load in North Wales mountain areas. If the guide is decent, it will give you an idea in the descriptions how each crag generally ranks locally, then the stars give an idea within that.
I guess that's what 1 or 2 stars are for - the Wye Valley (!) - it's the overuse if 3 stars of late that pisses me off
-
Also it's worth noting that North Wales Limestone does have the full compliment of stars overall, it's just most of them have been dumped on The Diamond and a few other of Pete's recently developed favourites / hidden gems ;) ;D
cashforstars :ninja:
-
I guess I get wound up by going somewhere like the Wye Valley and it's a 3 star fest in places vs Llanberis Pass where there are genuinely loads of 3 star routes.
I'd be wary of going to White Goods crag then, although its got 18 3 star routes it probably isn't better than Dinas Cromlech
-
I guess that's what 1 or 2 stars are for - the Wye Valley (!) - it's the overuse if 3 stars of late that pisses me off
Then routes on slightly scruffy looking single pitch inland trad limestone crags would never get 3 stars; they lack the aesthetics of sedimentary rocks, the swagger of the big sport crags, the grandeur of mountain or moorland routes, or the atmosphere of sea cliffs.
They are not my favourite thing either, but some people love them. Doesn't mean you can't compare the relative merits of the routes in that area though.
-
Limestone is sedimentary. :geek:
-
Fair point. I was (and I think you know I was) trying to lump gritstone and sandstone together in one, and failing.
Anyhoo, point I was trying to make is grading should be relative to the crag / area, but I do agree with shurt that Shorncliffe (assuming that's his specific beef with Wye Valley?) seems to have a lot of 3 star routes, but a quick look on UKC you can see the spread of stars is pretty even, just that no-one notices the heap of unstarred stuff.
-
I guess I get wound up by going somewhere like the Wye Valley and it's a 3 star fest in places vs Llanberis Pass where there are genuinely loads of 3 star routes.
I'd be wary of going to White Goods crag then, although its got 18 3 star routes it probably isn't better than Dinas Cromlech
Apples and oranges. The DT routes at White Goods are vastly superior to those on the Cromlech, which has none to my knowledge?
(however compared to Clogwyn Manod it's over-starred.. ;) )
edit: #climbing_is_my_passion
-
Compared to Newtyle they are both shit though :)
-
4* have been around in the SMC guides for a while now. Apparently reserved for routes of the greatest quality and standing in the UK. Still end up with some shite like the old man of hoy and either the bat or something on Ben nevis is meant to be very average for 4*...
-
4* have been around in the SMC guides for a while now. Apparently reserved for routes of the greatest quality and standing in the UK. Still end up with some shite like the old man of hoy and either the bat or something on Ben nevis is meant to be very average for 4*...
Isn't this a gentle dig at Sassenachs and the Welsh? The best routes in Scotland have to be worth more stars than anything south of the border! Gary gives The Original Route three stars on a four star scale and I expect it is for an E1 leader. GMB and For A Few Dollars More are generally recognised as better quality routes.
I don't have a strong opinion about generosity of stars as long as you are aware of the system in use. A two star route on Cloggy (Mordor, for example) is better than most three star routes anywhere else. Subtract one star (and half an E-grade) if the route belongs to the guidebook writer, especially in Pembroke. The idea that White Goods has more three star routes than Huntsman's Leap did make me laugh though. The main problem with the RockFaxification of starring is many people now think no stars automatically means a bad experience and two star routes are hardly worth bothering with.
-
The Bat is worth 3* for the climbing and an extra star for the history. Location and history sure count for something IMO.
-
In my SMC Ben Nevis guide The Bat is 3 stars, looks like it's often wet and grimy in that groove. Only Torro, Centurion and Titan's Wall get 4 stars. Torro seems fair enough, amazing journey. Centuion a bit meh I though, '3-stars meh' that is. Titan's Wall is basically one long (amazing) pitch to an abseil off from what I can gather.. maybe 4 stars a bit generous? King Kong would be 4 stars if it wasn't marred by death choss top pitches which many people don't bother with and ab off instead. Gemini and Shield Direct also get 4 stars, again probably fair enough although yet to be in Scotland when they've been in nick.
-
In my SMC Ben Nevis guide The Bat is 3 stars, looks like it's often wet and grimy in that groove. Only Torro, Centurion and Titan's Wall get 4 stars. Torro seems fair enough, amazing journey. Centuion a bit meh I though, '3-stars meh' that is. Titan's Wall is basically one long (amazing) pitch to an abseil off from what I can gather.. maybe 4 stars a bit generous? King Kong would be 4 stars if it wasn't marred by death choss top pitches which many people don't bother with and ab off instead. Gemini and Shield Direct also get 4 stars, again probably fair enough although yet to be in Scotland when they've been in nick.
Centurion is better in winter ;-) (well, that said...I've not yet done it in summer) #humblebrag
-
Isn't this a gentle dig at Sassenachs and the Welsh?
That, and being pure bollox too (with a hint of the usual nationalistic bollox of course).
-
Only Torro, Centurion and Titan's Wall get 4 stars.
In Scottish Rock Climbs they were a bit more generous, -1 Direct, Tower Ridge, Bullroar, all get 4* too, plus loads of other routes around that don't have the historic significance of Ben routes.
-
Ah yes, Bullroar, Minus 1 Direct and Tower Ridge are also 4 stars in the SMC Ben guide. Hadn't looked to the left at those pages!
Ledge Route also gets 4 stars as a winter route.. i think it's a good climb but I'm not sure it's 'that' great relative to various other grade II ridges around the UK. Low grade ridges of that length are fairly generic and for me don't stand out until you introduce more length and/or difficulty - Tower Ridge and Skye Ridge being the most obvious great ones.
-
Yep, it's no Aonach Eagach. I've not done it though, so can't comment, maybe it's spectacular terrain at such an easy grade.
-
Gary gives The Original Route three stars on a four star scale and I expect it is for an E1 leader. GMB and For A Few Dollars More are generally recognised as better quality routes.
I thought A few dollars more was right at two stars. The summit is possibly worth a star on its own, but there is much better rock to be found on Rora head. I've done perhaps 3 routes that felt a level of quality above anything else: Prozac link, Antiworlds, Prophesy of Drowning.
-
I think I was part reacting against what I perceived to be the devaluing of quality by other guidebooks, and first ascentionists with vested interests in their babies being the most beautiful. Maybe I was a little bit harsh but I still think I mostly got it right*, provided the reader can accept 1 star is a good route.
Of course it depends on having a good grasp of what the whole of the UK, or the whole of N.Wales or the NWL area has to offer. I'm far from all-knowing but I think I have a good rounded knowledge when it comes to routes.
I'm with you on this - though also agree you were probably a bit harsh at times in NWL, with Pen Trwyn being the main casualty!
I'm all for starring on a national scale, but like you say, this entails people accepting that 1 star = good. The Llanberis guide is a good example, where 1 star routes are always worth doing.
Star inflation is such a blight in some recent guidebooks. I've climbed some utterly crap 2* additions on slate recently. But even if a book is internally consistent, you lose the distinction between the genuinely excellent stuff and the 'local' classics. If this means certain guidebooks have hardly any routes with more than a star, so what?
-
Fair point. I was (and I think you know I was) trying to lump gritstone and sandstone together in one, and failing.
Anyhoo, point I was trying to make is grading should be relative to the crag / area, but I do agree with shurt that Shorncliffe (assuming that's his specific beef with Wye Valley?) seems to have a lot of 3 star routes, but a quick look on UKC you can see the spread of stars is pretty even, just that no-one notices the heap of unstarred stuff.
Oh the Wye is just a pile of shit Chris. If it was near some decent crags no one would go to it. If I was in charge I'd ban 3 stars in the whole area.
I get there are people who love certain areas but that doesn't mean they can just dole out 3 stars willie nillie. It has to be consistent nationally
-
Yep, it's no Aonach Eagach. I've not done it though, so can't comment, maybe it's spectacular terrain at such an easy grade.
Ledge Route is mostly a well-positioned walk - the most interesting section on it is avoidable. Getting 4* might be something to do with Andy Nisbet's determination to champion lower grade routes, I'm not sure.
As for the other 4* routes on Carn Dearg, I've done them all with the exception of Centurion, oddly - apart from Torro, they're all best finished at the Titan's Wall abseil, or the abiding memory is tainted by crappy final pitches.
-
I used to have a thing about stars and that was to try and avoid putting things up to three stars. That's cos three stars was almost a kiss of death. If a climber went on one and had anything other than a incredible experience then there us some disappointment. Two stars leaves room for personal experience.
Four stars always seemed like a joke. What poor climb could survive that billing? I think I have done a couple - Western Front at Almscliffe used to get 4 - great route with a history, and some E2 on the Shelter Stone that's in Extreme Rock - amazing day out with a cool pitch up a corner that was a bit sore on the feet.
I'm wary of giving three stars.
-
Four stars always seemed like a joke. What poor climb could survive that billing?
:agree:
-
Western Front at Almscliffe used to get 4
Great Western wasn't it in the Millenium Grit brick guide?!
-
Oh the Wye is just a pile of shit Chris. If it was near some decent crags no one would go to it. If I was in charge I'd ban 3 stars in the whole area.
That's an exaggeration. Lots of stuff on GO wall, for example, would get 3 stars anywhere in the country.
-
Great Western at Almscliff gets 4 stars in my 1998 Yorkshire Grit guide.
Bizarrely it was the many superlatives conferred upon it that stopped me ever climbing it. I used to make the occasional trip to Almscliff about 20 years back, as I had a mate who lived nearby. I was a steady HVS climber at the time, however I never gave Great Western a go as I alway felt that I wanted to be climbing really well to fully appreciate the only 4 star route in the guide (with optional 5 star finish!).
As such my trusty old Yorkshire Grit guide (John Dunne on the front cover mostly covered by the duct tape that holds the book together) has most of the HVS’s at Almscliff ticked off, but not the one with the most stars.
-
Great Western only belongs in a "Star Quality" thread as a counterpoint to the "quality" bit. A dismal and mediocre link-up that ruins two good strong independent lines by the worst climbing on either of them. I did it as an HVS/E1 leader and the pleasure of the WF 5 Star Finish barely compensated for the uncouth yobbery of the traverse.
If you were feeling generous you could perhaps scrape it into 2 stars (one for the position, one for the finish), maybe. Demon Wall and Overhanging Groove (now THAT is a line) are proper quality HVSes at the crag.
-
The worst climbing on the vs start to great western is the shitty grovel right, under the roof. Back around.
-
It’s OK dunnyg, Fiend has no choice but to talk down Great Western as it’s not ‘proper’ gritstone climbing as it has holds on it.
Fiend, odd that you prefer OH Grooves and DW, which are both essentially one move climbs, and OH Grooves has a step off onto a big ledge you have to avoid.
-
I think this is going much too far into UKC territory now, possibly time to lock and log :)
-
It’s OK dunnyg, Fiend has no choice but to talk down Great Western as it’s not ‘proper’ gritstone climbing as it has holds on it.
Fiend, odd that you prefer OH Grooves and DW, which are both essentially one move climbs, and OH Grooves has a step off onto a big ledge you have to avoid.
I think you'd struggle to find an HVS leader who said any of the three Cliff HVSs were one move wonders.
-
I think this is going much too far into UKC territory now, possibly time to lock and log :)
Apologies for dragging this from the majesty of the Ben to the cow poo of the Yorkshire Wart!
-
Everybody’s acting like four-star system is rare but that’s what Rockfax use (with “Top50” as the four-star equivalent) and they’re the most popular guides for a hell of a lot of places. The more levels you have the worse the no-star routes are implied to be of course and I don’t think that symbol system they use or the hair-trigger application of the word “grovel” helps spread traffic out either.
Conversely the problem with the idealistic “national” starring system is that the people who champion it are usually the sort of picky fuckers who can always come up with a reason why any route isn’t good enough to deserve the top status or contrarians so revolted by the idea of any unanimous opinion that they’ll disagree with it in principle. ;)
Whatever system’s used there need to be a lot of whatever the top tier of rating is as if there are only a few of them people will just be disappointed as Grimer says or start pointless bickering about subjective differences in enjoyment as seen above.
Personally I reckon a three-tier system like the Vertebrate Peak Bouldering guide (no star, star or bold star) is the best resolution. More and you’re splitting hairs and implying good routes aren’t worth bothering with, fewer and you’re insulting the reader with a “there’s only two types of climb...” style reductionism.
-
How many "best route in the world" s are there anyway?
-
How many "best route in the world" s are there anyway?
One. Airwolf
I thought this was a bouldering site...
-
How many "best route in the world" s are there anyway?
One. Airwolf
I thought this was a bouldering site...
Nah. It's all hype and no substance. one move wonder
-
I like the idea of an extra rank on the star system but in the other direction. A turd :shit: for local enthusiasts only tottering choss pile.
Things like Den Lane could get a turd for the whole crag. Keep it nice and quiet for me. ;D
-
I like the idea of an extra rank on the star system but in the other direction. A turd :shit: for l ocal enthusiasts only tottering choss pile ancashire.
:blink:
-
Yep, it's no Aonach Eagach. I've not done it though, so can't comment, maybe it's spectacular terrain at such an easy grade.
It's an ok descent route on a bad day # elitist.
Thing is, it's a good route, but terrible when conditions are avalanchey (approch on no.5) but often recommended as just such!
-
Whatever route gets **** you'll nearly always find someone who is disappointed in it. The route can never live up to the expectation - well, not never, but it's hard.
One of my fave routes on Gogarth is Kalahari. Two stars. Every one I've ever spoken to about it loved it.
-
Personally I reckon a three-tier system like the Vertebrate Peak Bouldering guide (no star, star or bold star) is the best resolution. More and you’re splitting hairs and implying good routes aren’t worth bothering with, fewer and you’re insulting the reader with a “there’s only two types of climb...” style reductionism.
Yeah, I think this is spot on.
Possibly with something to denote routes that are truly, incontestably bad, though I'd rather those be left out completely so I can carry around a smaller book.
-
Whatever route gets **** you'll nearly always find someone who is disappointed in it. The route can never live up to the expectation - well, not never, but it's hard.
One of my fave routes on Gogarth is Kalahari. Two stars. Every one I've ever spoken to about it loved it.
Agreed, loved that route. I did with Barrows of all people...
-
Whatever route gets **** you'll nearly always find someone who is disappointed in it. The route can never live up to the expectation - well, not never, but it's hard.
It seems like the climbing version of the "that film is amazing, you'll really enjoy it" problem where if you go in thinking it's gonna be the best film you've ever seen then it leaves a lot of room for disappointment. For me, the best films (and climbs) are almost all ones where the quality took me by surprise and my expectations were exceeded. I don't think it's necessarily a reflection on people/psychology/whatever, I think there's just a lot that goes in to having an enjoyable experience on a climb and even the best climbs are not gonna push the buttons for a lot of people.
-
I think this is going much too far into UKC territory now, possibly time to lock and log :)
Apologies for dragging this from the majesty of the Ben to the cow poo of the Yorkshire Wart!
That wasn't a specific comment, just a general observation!
-
I favour the three star system - it allows for more nuance in the quality rating, and even then i regularly have arguments with the NWB feedback group about problems that sit in that awkward bit in between the ratings. Aping the 7 + 8s star system doesn't appeal to me, it just seem a bit flat.
I did use a 4 star system in the 2010 North Wales Winter Climbing guide and I think it worked okay.
It was suggested to me that I had been over generous with the stars in the 2017 NWB guide, and I have dialled it back a bit in the 3rd edition. However, it is true that the UKC logbook entries are almost always more generous than the guide. I think it's people getting a bit misty eyed when they are buzzing after an ascent. This applies even more with 'first ascentitus' - you might have had a three star experience climbing a particular line, doesn't mean it is objectively a three star line.
-
That's the best thing about doing FAs, you can get a four star experience even if the scale only goes up to three.
-
That's the best thing about doing FAs, you can get a four star experience even if the scale only goes up to three.
[/quote
I reckon I've over-starred every new route I've done, except for the last. So hard to distil the experience and extract the objective quality.
I've even had a 2* experience on :shit: route. (wrote it up as such though).
I still reckon that crux-avoiding variation pitch I did, high on a remote face, where no-one may ever go again, was objectively the best quality bit of climbing I've ever done.....or was it?...?!?
-
For Bonjoy's reason and Pantonino's described 'first ascentititus' I never give stars to a new problem or route I've done. I think it should be the job of repeaters to ascribe stars to things, which would ideally build a consensus over time and miss out the FAers biased relationship with the thing. To be honest I assumed that was the norm.
-
For Bonjoy's reason and Pantonino's described 'first ascentititus' I never give stars to a new problem or route I've done. I think it should be the job of repeaters to ascribe stars to things, which would ideally build a consensus over time and miss out the FAers biased relationship with the thing. To be honest I assumed that was the norm.
I aim for very conservative starring when I report stuff on UKB (the sole place I write stuff up). One star really good, two for exceptional, most stuff gets none. The prob with giving no stars at all is that you give no pointers to potential repeaters, who might not appreciate walking in for an hour to find all the unstarred probs are actually no star probs. Some hint at what is worth making an effort for and what is just circuit filler is quite important I think. I also think stars are more straightforward and fungible than indicating quality via random hyperbole.
-
I aim for very conservative starring when I report stuff on UKB (the sole place I write stuff up). One star really good, two for exceptional, most stuff gets none. The prob with giving no stars at all is that you give no pointers to potential repeaters, who might not appreciate walking in for an hour to find all the unstarred probs are actually no star probs. Some hint at what is worth making an effort for and what is just circuit filler is quite important I think. I also think stars are more straightforward and fungible than indicating quality via random hyperbole.
True enough, I just go on the assumption that no-one will ever go to most of my stuff anyway!
In seriousness though, I'm perhaps a bit old school in thinking that a good photo or video should be enough to wet people's appetite and they can then decide for themselves.
-
:lol:
Yeah, a good photo or vid is the best way to show the quality. Let the prob speak for itself. My vids and photo tend to be pretty shoddy unfortunately.
-
Ha! Yeah, I thought exactly the same about mine as I posted that. The sole reason I joined Instagram was to post low quality videos of my esoterica in a bid to get locals interested.
-
One of my favourite feeds. Always interesting looking stuff, always places I've never been, and usually places I've never heard of. Keep up the good work.
-
I'm blushing!