UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => bouldering => Topic started by: Fiend on August 12, 2022, 01:12:40 pm
-
I've been hanging out with a wide variety of guidebook authors recently (covering a really wide variety of areas!!), and have enjoyed being part of the passion of exploring, documenting, and making sense out of these areas to present them to others.
I've also been hanging out with an old climbing friend who has re-kindled a bit of his passion for bouldering, and also re-kindled a bit of grumpiness about how every sodding thing has to be named, claimed, and precisely described and promoted (okay I don't think that grumpiness ever went away ;))
As someone increasingly involved with the former, but also someone keen on exploration (albeit, this is partly why I do document the few scraps I discover, to encourage exploration) and bored by honeypotting, his perspective did get me thinking - do people see a broader picture outside the current "document everything" status quo??
Is the art of having problems "left for the intrepid to re-discover" a dying one??
Could guidebook writers resist putting areas and problems in a book, solely for THAT reason?? (i.e. not for the reason of tradition like Grinah Stones, nor for ecological sensitivity like Bridestones).
Would you (vaguely pointing the finger at everyone) be able to do a good, obvious new problem, and not claim it, and leave it for others to rediscover (and indeed bite your tongue when it comes to retro-claiming)??
-
If it’s not ecological or sensitive access why can’t people document stuff? Just because one person (or even 5 people) is grumpy about everything being document doesn’t necessarily mean the whole world should toe the line.
At the end of the day because people on UKB all voted to not document grinah for example or shout about Crag X/Z - this hasn’t exactly stopped people (including wads) posting videos on socials about these problems.
If you go to a non sensitive area, and put up a new boulder and document it, whether it’s good or shite is no one else’s business in my opinion, you can voice your disdain all you want or even mass bin vote the lines (this has happened to me) but that’s not gonna put people off from claiming and putting up lines.
-
Could one (or indeed you) resist doing it though?? For the sake of letting others have the joy of discovery, and not being over-prescriptive about every single bit of rock??
-
I personally agree that we over document these days. I think that a lot of people are desperate to get an FA in, to "make their mark" so to speak, and maybe it'd be better to just let the rock be what it is, unconstrained by classification
That said, some problems are made much better by classification, both because often thr rules of the problem make for better climbing, but also because of the shared history, the name, the experience that means two people who have never met but have done the same problem are in some way connected (in my mind anyway) by something they both did, even if years apart. So I feel like bouldering is better for having named records of problems, but that often a problem is better left unnamed and unrecorded
-
Great Question Fiend and one i really struggle with despite the fact i am and writing and putting out{eventually} a local guide.
I have realised that for me the greatest part of climbing was discovering/cleaning and climbing a new line, ALL the rest pales in comparison. With this in mind why would i deprive the next man from that experience by documenting it.
A few lengthy discussions with peers, professionals and other auld cunts like me on this subject has given a wide range of opinions and all of them valid, that's the problem.
So here is my solution for what its worth- I will document the traditional areas developed by others before i came along and the 2 or 3 areas i have developed as best i can then leave a few hidden gems for those who have the inclination and adventurous heart to enjoy.
-
Guilty! I added something to Frodsham recently just because it felt like an ace problem. Clearly not the first though, there was even chalk on it. I like to think it was an urge to share rather than grab any vague glory. Is there glory in a Font 5? I've had a couple of nice outings up to Halkyn recently, courtesy of someone sticking it on ukc. And the pleasure of lovely sharp low grade limestone bouldering. That could probably be fixed by putting it in a guidebook though ;-)
There's probably a hierarchy from 'daft', 'good enough for online' to 'guidebookworthy'. Though that latter might be threatened by the BMC losing interest in definitive guidebooks?
There's definitely been some dross documented recently though, if you keep an eye on ukc 'Latest Photos'. Mostly harmless I guess. You'll never turn a drossy area into a honeypot just by documenting it.
I was tempted to add the niche Alvanley to ukc (one of Andy Popp's), but didn't. People should still buy guidebooks (and secateurs).
-
Guilty! I added something to Frodsham recently just because it felt like an ace problem. Clearly not the first though, there was even chalk on it. I like to think it was an urge to share rather than grab any vague glory. Is there glory in a Font 5? I've had a couple of nice outings up to Halkyn recently, courtesy of someone sticking it on ukc. And the pleasure of lovely sharp low grade limestone bouldering. That could probably be fixed by putting it in a guidebook though ;-)
There's probably a hierarchy from 'daft', 'good enough for online' to 'guidebookworthy'. Though that latter might be threatened by the BMC losing interest in definitive guidebooks?
There's definitely been some dross documented recently though, if you keep an eye on ukc 'Latest Photos'. Mostly harmless I guess. You'll never turn a drossy area into a honeypot just by documenting it.
I was tempted to add the niche Alvanley to ukc (one of Andy Popp's), but didn't. People should still buy guidebooks (and secateurs).
This- https://vimeo.com/596829450 (https://vimeo.com/596829450)
-
Nice - Take 5 - too high for Dave Brubeck!
-
I personally agree that we over document these days. I think that a lot of people are desperate to get an FA in, to "make their mark" so to speak, and maybe it'd be better to just let the rock be what it is, unconstrained by classification
That said, some problems are made much better by classification, both because often thr rules of the problem make for better climbing, but also because of the shared history, the name, the experience that means two people who have never met but have done the same problem are in some way connected (in my mind anyway) by something they both did, even if years apart. So I feel like bouldering is better for having named records of problems, but that often a problem is better left unnamed and unrecorded
Couldn’t it just be that people are excited to share a good climb with others which would otherwise go unclimbed because it’s never recorded anywhere? Not everything had to be about desperation to leave their mark, though there’s also nothing wrong with that seeing as climbing is a pretty ego driven sport.
Other than that, my other point is, where do we draw the line? Why not just get rid of all guidebooks, UKC and the new problems section on UKB?
To me this seems like a pretty weird thread seeing as a lot of people here have no doubt put up FAs whether they’re good or choss and documented them and shared them, myself included. I’m not so high and mighty to try and gatekeep people wanting to document stuff.
-
Is there glory in a Font 5?
Grade has nothing to do with quality. If you wondered around and found something like Crescent Arête and got to bag the FA I’m sure many of us would be pretty chuffed.
-
Maybe not every lump of choss needs to be documented, but I think there is an art to organisation and knowing what things are. There are many great problems out there that dont look like much which I'd never try or know about were they not documented and advertised.
As for "is there any glory in putting up a font 5", difficulty has nothing to do with quality.
-
I think there's levels of documentation. Before the blog, there was the little black note book, and there was a lot more in the book that never made it to the book in Pete's Eats.
I've just got used to brain dumping into the blog, and lost the little black note book. However, there are still things that don't make it that far, let alone be promoted to the Welsh mafia at large.
I still take an awful lot of pleasure when my stuff gets repeated though, the shared experiences.
-
I personally agree that we over document these days. I think that a lot of people are desperate to get an FA in, to "make their mark" so to speak, and maybe it'd be better to just let the rock be what it is, unconstrained by classification
That said, some problems are made much better by classification, both because often thr rules of the problem make for better climbing, but also because of the shared history, the name, the experience that means two people who have never met but have done the same problem are in some way connected (in my mind anyway) by something they both did, even if years apart. So I feel like bouldering is better for having named records of problems, but that often a problem is better left unnamed and unrecorded
Couldn’t it just be that people are excited to share a good climb with others which would otherwise go unclimbed because it’s never recorded anywhere? Not everything had to be about desperation to leave their mark, though there’s also nothing wrong with that seeing as climbing is a pretty ego driven sport.
Other than that, my other point is, where do we draw the line? Why not just get rid of all guidebooks, UKC and the new problems section on UKB?
To me this seems like a pretty weird thread seeing as a lot of people here have no doubt put up FAs whether they’re good or choss and documented them and shared them, myself included. I’m not so high and mighty to try and gatekeep people wanting to document stuff.
I suppose I see the ego-driven element distasteful although I am not immune to it myself
-
I think there's levels of documentation. Before the blog, there was the little black note book, and there was a lot more in the book that never made it to the book in Pete's Eats.
I've just got used to brain dumping into the blog, and lost the little black note book. However, there are still things that don't make it that far, let alone be promoted to the Welsh mafia at large.
I still take an awful lot of pleasure when my stuff gets repeated though, the shared experiences.
Agreed, this rarely happens but its lovely to discuss the character and flow of a line, to compare and contrast.
-
I personally agree that we over document these days. I think that a lot of people are desperate to get an FA in, to "make their mark" so to speak, and maybe it'd be better to just let the rock be what it is, unconstrained by classification
That said, some problems are made much better by classification, both because often thr rules of the problem make for better climbing, but also because of the shared history, the name, the experience that means two people who have never met but have done the same problem are in some way connected (in my mind anyway) by something they both did, even if years apart. So I feel like bouldering is better for having named records of problems, but that often a problem is better left unnamed and unrecorded
Couldn’t it just be that people are excited to share a good climb with others which would otherwise go unclimbed because it’s never recorded anywhere? Not everything had to be about desperation to leave their mark, though there’s also nothing wrong with that seeing as climbing is a pretty ego driven sport.
Other than that, my other point is, where do we draw the line? Why not just get rid of all guidebooks, UKC and the new problems section on UKB?
To me this seems like a pretty weird thread seeing as a lot of people here have no doubt put up FAs whether they’re good or choss and documented them and shared them, myself included. I’m not so high and mighty to try and gatekeep people wanting to document stuff.
I suppose I see the ego-driven element distasteful although I am not immune to it myself
Agreed, I think being self aware and trying to reign it in is all we can do but to try and deny that we have egos is a lie, and just not human nature. But having an ego is not a bad thing, it’s how you ride your ego and how that affects others that can be distasteful. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to feel good about yourself, I think this is inherent in climbing itself.
-
Some musings.
I've recorded new things as well as not written up a crag. I was planning to write up the crag, made notes etc when I was there climbing and took photos, but then never got round to it. I know people climbed there before (I found some gear, and later found out who's it was), but there wasn't anything harder than font 5, mostly easier. I think as a crag to visit the experience would be pretty average at best, but approaching it with an "exploratory" state of mind made for an excellent afternoons climbing.
I've defintely been driven by ego sometimes. Seeing your name by routes and then people repeating them feels good, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that up to a point. Occaisionally it does annoy me how "look at me" climbing seems to be, but that could be me projecting on other people some of time, then I realise I don't really care, life is too short!
Worth saying I also really enjoy going to obscure crags and repeating routes where someone has put the time in to document it, things like tiny obscure crags on unknown stones are great, and give a similar feel of exploration, finding "new" to me crags to get to.
If someone went and documented the crag I went to, would it matter, would I care? Not to me I don't think.
Some thoughts for your soup anyway.
-
I personally agree that we over document these days. I think that a lot of people are desperate to get an FA in, to "make their mark" so to speak, and maybe it'd be better to just let the rock be what it is, unconstrained by classification
That said, some problems are made much better by classification, both because often thr rules of the problem make for better climbing, but also because of the shared history, the name, the experience that means two people who have never met but have done the same problem are in some way connected (in my mind anyway) by something they both did, even if years apart. So I feel like bouldering is better for having named records of problems, but that often a problem is better left unnamed and unrecorded
This is exactly the sort of grey area, maybe yes maybe no answer that makes sense to me.
To me this seems like a pretty weird thread seeing as a lot of people here have no doubt put up FAs whether they’re good or choss and documented them and shared them, myself included. I’m not so high and mighty to try and gatekeep people wanting to document stuff.
Well, several people have replied with different views, and you yourself seem quite invested in and opinionated on the issue (including a vague wiff of defensiveness even though this thread is nothing about you, it's about the general idea of complete documentation vs leaving some re-discovery), so maybe as a climbing discussion thread on a climbing discussion forum, it's not that weird??
I still take an awful lot of pleasure when my stuff gets repeated though, the shared experiences.
Agreed, this rarely happens but its lovely to discuss the character and flow of a line, to compare and contrast.
From a personal standpoint, this is a big part of the value I get in doing new problems and sharing them with people (or sharing obscure problems and areas with people full stop!), the idea that you've discovered a path for other people to follow, described it in a way that makes sense, given them the information, and then people can go along and have a great time climbing that bit of rock.
The counterpoint from my friend is, roughly: "Each time you do that with a problem you might give 10 people the simple pleasure of doing that problem you've described and documented, but you might prevent one or more people having the much deeper, more exciting, long-lasting and intimate pleasure of discovering that problem for themselves and climbing it as for the 'first time'"
(I don't have a clear answer or opinion on that, hence posting a pretty weird thread about it)
-
I personally agree that we over document these days. I think that a lot of people are desperate to get an FA in, to "make their mark" so to speak, and maybe it'd be better to just let the rock be what it is, unconstrained by classification
That said, some problems are made much better by classification, both because often thr rules of the problem make for better climbing, but also because of the shared history, the name, the experience that means two people who have never met but have done the same problem are in some way connected (in my mind anyway) by something they both did, even if years apart. So I feel like bouldering is better for having named records of problems, but that often a problem is better left unnamed and unrecorded
This is exactly the sort of grey area, maybe yes maybe no answer that makes sense to me.
To me this seems like a pretty weird thread seeing as a lot of people here have no doubt put up FAs whether they’re good or choss and documented them and shared them, myself included. I’m not so high and mighty to try and gatekeep people wanting to document stuff.
Well, several people have replied with different views, and you yourself seem quite invested in and opinionated on the issue (including a vague wiff of defensiveness even though this thread is nothing about you, it's about the general idea of complete documentation vs leaving some re-discovery), so maybe as a climbing discussion thread on a climbing discussion forum, it's not that weird??
I still take an awful lot of pleasure when my stuff gets repeated though, the shared experiences.
Agreed, this rarely happens but its lovely to discuss the character and flow of a line, to compare and contrast.
From a personal standpoint, this is a big part of the value I get in doing new problems and sharing them with people (or sharing obscure problems and areas with people full stop!), the idea that you've discovered a path for other people to follow, described it in a way that makes sense, given them the information, and then people can go along and have a great time climbing that bit of rock.
The counterpoint from my friend is, roughly: "Each time you do that with a problem you might give 10 people the simple pleasure of doing that problem you've described and documented, but you might prevent one or more people having the much deeper, more exciting, long-lasting and intimate pleasure of discovering that problem for themselves and climbing it as for the 'first time'"
(I don't have a clear answer or opinion on that, hence posting a pretty weird thread about it)
Sorry wasn’t meant to come off defensive but I can see how it did, my train of thought is if I’m developing a new area I’ll usually document the good lines, I’m more than happy to share them with people so they can enjoy some lovely climbing :thumbsup:
-
The counterpoint from my friend is, roughly: "Each time you do that with a problem you might give 10 people the simple pleasure of doing that problem you've described and documented, but you might prevent one or more people having the much deeper, more exciting, long-lasting and intimate pleasure of discovering that problem for themselves and climbing it as for the 'first time'"
But a counterpoint to this could be, what then happens if the next person who climbs it as a "first ascent" decides to announce it? Does someone tell them that actually someone else did it previously, thus ruining that 'more exciting, long-lasting and intimate pleasure'? Or does the original ascensionist obligingly give up their "first ascent" to others?
The way I see it though, as long as the significant, obvious or worthwhile climbs are documented, that's good enough. I know of areas that have an abundance of rock, but only one or two lines described, because arguably it isn't worth documenting a hundred 3-5 graded boulders if they aren't significant enough to acknowledge as being more than choss. A tricky line to draw, but certainly LakesBloc has tread this line well with acknowledging climbable rock that would be a good circuit, but nothing more is provided. Jopplety How springs to mind as a good example. Even UKC doesn't list all the easy stuff.
-
Or does the original ascensionist obligingly give up their "first ascent" to others?
Would that be hard to do??
-
Not really. Depends on the person, although if they’re not going to sing about their new FA, they probably don’t care if someone else does instead.
-
Or does the original ascensionist obligingly give up their "first ascent" to others?
Would that be hard to do??
No, not really
Another way to look at it might be-
looking through a friends climbing diaries from 30 yrs ago and i find a note about a line i recognise, once quizzed about it the individual recounts a multi year project they eventually sent/named but kept silent about{for whatever reason}. I realise that this was the climb/line /F.A of my life but i didn't do it first.
I don't think this detracts from my efforts at all, in fact i think it highlights the fragility of our pursuit and "little game" in the grand scheme of things against the hard lasting stone and the thousand other monkey children that have scampered across its faces.
-
Maybe somebody already made this point but if you want the sense of discovery can’t you just not look at the guidebook or ukc etc beyond finding the crag. There are loads of crags I know about but have no idea about any specific lines. I could easily just rock up and climb whatever looks good without worrying if they’ve been done before. But maybe that misses the point since I’d know they almost definitely aren’t FAs.
-
I’m quite happy with people documenting things. Saves me time having to look for them myself. I can see why people would want to keep things undocumented, but it’s probably going to be out of their hands as popularity grows
-
This just seems like a ridiculous thing to complain about. Sharing problems/crags makes them accessible to far more people. This draws people away from honeypot crags and makes the whole sport more sustainable. Sure, a small handful of people take pleasure in going out and discovering something undocumented - nice for them that they have the time and wherewithal (and respect for those who do this and document what they find). But a relative scarcity of undocumented rock seems a small price to pay compared to the overall benefit documentation does for the climbing community in general.
-
Maybe it's a complaint, maybe it's just another perspective, maybe it's pondering on the possibility of voluntarily leaving things unclaimed, maybe it's speculating on something we might be losing - especially in the modern age, as matt463, where the popularity just keeps going (along wiith the sharing of information).
Of course, in the context of this thread, there is the issue of "People who like keeping some things quiet and like a bit of undocumented rock for exploration might also be people who don't often post on forums" :-\
-
When people regularly post to tiktok, seeing interesting things in the world probably makes them immediately think of how to share it (I imagine). For people who regularly post new problems, how much of the motivation is community driven vs a desire to post to their social account. I think you can document new problems quietly. I don't think I would have ever enjoyed climbing without the excellent guidebooks I've had access to, acknowledging the effort these things take to write, without any experience of this I can imagine its a very long process. Preinstagram, documentation required a lot more persistence I imagine.
Maybe its a bit like music, how many of the current artists on top lists will still be headlining festivals in 20-30 years. People will always want to climb crescent arete.
If there's the potential for them to discover an excellent problem that other people enjoy, and ultimately get more people off their ass and exercising I can't see its a bad thing. I can still go to burbage and pretend I'm the only one who climbs there if I want. If I didnt use UKClimbing or instagram I'd probably be able to believe that with a higher dose of sincerity
-
Isles of Scilly is a good case study, loads of rock, awkward to get to. Loads been climbed ( cool bouldering) but very little gets out, originally from local resistance along the lines mentioned in the thread.
We did a kind of guide that lived there, as a single tome ( a bit like a Pete's Eats book with photos stuck in). Some stuff from that disseminated to the wider public (UKC etc) but it's Still a fairly undiscovered area, at least on the surface.
-
I've only seen a photo dump of Isles of Scilly boulders but, based on what I've seen, I reckon those boulders absolutely deserve to be documented. For me it comes down to quality.
When I first started climbing, information was relatively rare. It was often difficult to find boulders with half baked approach notes. It was harder still to find new stuff without all the tools we have to lean on today. I think we're getting to a stage now where UKC presents to opposite issue (for established stuff)—i.e., the documenting of reams and reams of tosh. Far from making guidebooks redundant, I think this profusion of tosh actually makes them ever more important. It's necessary information sorting of the kind that characterises our modern world.
Take my local hill Carn Brea as an example. Over the years I've climbed most things here. I've climbed a lot of maybe new stuff that I don't think is worth recording, and I've properly documented maybe half a dozen new things which I think are worthy of names and grades. There's a stone monument on top of the hill that climbers have climbed on for decades without recording anything, but now someone has decided to name and grade all this arbitrary nonsense, including a hitherto unrecognised classic hiding in plain sight: https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/carn_brea-9597/south_face_traverse-664107 (https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/carn_brea-9597/south_face_traverse-664107). I'm willing to accept that my conception of quality is just different, but I have to say I'm struggling.
To sum up my position in two rules of thumb:
1. Things that are tosh by consensus don't need names and grades, and should be wiped from the ledger. Not everything needs to be documented (Carn Brea traverses).
2. Things that are good-to-amazing are almost always worth documenting (this doesn't imply the need for a name or grade) unless there's a good access/ecological issue not to. (Isles of Scilly blocs look amazing)
I could take or leave 1., as I'm probably just a bit grumpy. But 2. is a hill I'll die on. Things like Malc's Arete are gifts of nature—it's so rare to have all the right elements come together to produce genuine classics. I think we should treasure and share these things by default.
-
I've only seen a photo dump of Isles of Scilly boulders but, based on what I've seen, I reckon those boulders absolutely deserve to be documented. For me it comes down to quality.
When I first started climbing, information was relatively rare. It was often difficult to find boulders with half baked approach notes. It was harder still to find new stuff without all the tools we have to lean on today. I think we're getting to a stage now where UKC presents to opposite issue (for established stuff)—i.e., the documenting of reams and reams of tosh. Far from making guidebooks redundant, I think this profusion of tosh actually makes them ever more important. It's necessary information sorting of the kind that characterises our modern world.
Take my local hill Carn Brea as an example. Over the years I've climbed most things here. I've climbed a lot of maybe new stuff that I don't think is worth recording, and I've properly documented maybe half a dozen new things which I think are worthy of names and grades. There's a stone monument on top of the hill that climbers have climbed on for decades without recording anything, but now someone has decided to name and grade all this arbitrary nonsense, including a hitherto unrecognised classic hiding in plain sight: https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/carn_brea-9597/south_face_traverse-664107 (https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/carn_brea-9597/south_face_traverse-664107). I'm willing to accept that my conception of quality is just different, but I have to say I'm struggling.
To sum up my position in two rules of thumb:
1. Things that are tosh by consensus don't need names and grades, and should be wiped from the ledger. Not everything needs to be documented (Carn Brea traverses).
2. Things that are good-to-amazing are almost always worth documenting (this doesn't imply the need for a name or grade) unless there's a good access/ecological issue not to. (Isles of Scilly blocs look amazing)
I could take or leave 1., as I'm probably just a bit grumpy. But 2. is a hill I'll die on. Things like Malc's Arete are gifts of nature—it's so rare to have all the right elements come together to produce genuine classics. I think we should treasure and share these things by default.
I mostly agree with everything you’ve said, the only question I have is, what if something looks crap but actually climbs incredibly well? Sometimes a piece of rock can look like total choss but actually provide good movement, people may see it and dismiss it without ever trying it but does that mean it’s not worth writing up? Or is this one of those cases people have mentioned which is better left to the explorers to find?
-
I've only seen a photo dump of Isles of Scilly boulders but, based on what I've seen, I reckon those boulders absolutely deserve to be documented. For me it comes down to quality.
When I first started climbing, information was relatively rare. It was often difficult to find boulders with half baked approach notes. It was harder still to find new stuff without all the tools we have to lean on today. I think we're getting to a stage now where UKC presents to opposite issue (for established stuff)—i.e., the documenting of reams and reams of tosh. Far from making guidebooks redundant, I think this profusion of tosh actually makes them ever more important. It's necessary information sorting of the kind that characterises our modern world.
Take my local hill Carn Brea as an example. Over the years I've climbed most things here. I've climbed a lot of maybe new stuff that I don't think is worth recording, and I've properly documented maybe half a dozen new things which I think are worthy of names and grades. There's a stone monument on top of the hill that climbers have climbed on for decades without recording anything, but now someone has decided to name and grade all this arbitrary nonsense, including a hitherto unrecognised classic hiding in plain sight: https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/carn_brea-9597/south_face_traverse-664107 (https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/carn_brea-9597/south_face_traverse-664107). I'm willing to accept that my conception of quality is just different, but I have to say I'm struggling.
To sum up my position in two rules of thumb:
1. Things that are tosh by consensus don't need names and grades, and should be wiped from the ledger. Not everything needs to be documented (Carn Brea traverses).
2. Things that are good-to-amazing are almost always worth documenting (this doesn't imply the need for a name or grade) unless there's a good access/ecological issue not to. (Isles of Scilly blocs look amazing)
I could take or leave 1., as I'm probably just a bit grumpy. But 2. is a hill I'll die on. Things like Malc's Arete are gifts of nature—it's so rare to have all the right elements come together to produce genuine classics. I think we should treasure and share these things by default.
I read that all a little wrong the first time, Carn Brea isn't a hill you will die on! never mind, I agree with not documenting everything. Scilly Isles have long been known to contain good bouldering and those that have climbed there have often opted into the 'not documenting' camp. I've always respected that and if I had gone, would have done the same. People like Bob .... climbed on the Scillies and as with his problems on Carn Brea kept notes in a little book, so stuff was recorded just not publicly. I've climbed new problems on Carn Brea and if I thought they were good, documented them and if they were not so good I wouldn't bother. My guess (with some knowledge too) is that in the far west of Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, there will be hundreds of undocumented problems, most of them not that hard or even good
I'm pretty sure this is a fairly common approach, especially if the protagonists are not that interested in issues such as 'promotion, accessibility, sustainability and growth within our sport'.
-
What is worthy of documenting is possibly also a function of the intensity of development in the area or region.
I've moved to Scotland from the Peak and it would seem clear to me that the intensity of peak bouldering recording is in part based on the pre-existing level of documentation. A process of continuous re-appraisal of the boundary between worthy of record seems to take place with every record.
Its like a fractal, by recording all the good problems we open the door to recording the poor problems and fillers. Once we have recorded all these, the idea of recording good quality eliminates becomes acceptable.
If you just start the process at the "record eliminates" everyone quite frankly thinks your mad.
-
This topic makes me think it would be good if there was a system of statutory time-limited rights over boulder problems and trad routes, like a 999-year property leasehold but on a shorter timespan. When the statutory time elapsed then that problem's FA details become null and void, and FA rights (FA, name, grade) become 'up for grabs' again for whoever's psyched enough. The time period could be set at 25 years to allow a balance between the incentive to climbers of having their legacy recorded for a decent period of time, versus sustainability for future explorers. In this way there'd be a continuous rolling calendar of boulder problem renewals as their respective 'first ascent' dates rolled over the statutory 25-year expiry. First ascents would become a sustainable resource for future generations of 'exploratory climbers' to enjoy the the thrill of the chase and creative satisfaction, while previous first ascensionists could drop out of the scene or off the coil leaving a clean slate. It would also keep the guidebook industry busy and the likes of Alan James in buttons.
I know of a few keen boulder/route developers who would feel nauseous at the idea of their legacy disappearing like this... :lol:
-
What is worthy of documenting is possibly also a function of the intensity of development in the area or region.
I've moved to Scotland from the Peak and it would seem clear to me that the intensity of peak bouldering recording is in part based on the pre-existing level of documentation. A process of continuous re-appraisal of the boundary between worthy of record seems to take place with every record.
Its like a fractal, by recording all the good problems we open the door to recording the poor problems and fillers. Once we have recorded all these, the idea of recording good quality eliminates becomes acceptable.
If you just start the process at the "record eliminates" everyone quite frankly thinks your mad.
This is very true. Maybe also factor in the density of climbers and passing of time. What seemed right and normal 25 years ago will probably be at odds with what seems right and normal now. For example in Penwith 20 + years ago, there were only a handful of activists, bouldering pads opened up a new ear of development, yet reporting was word of mouth. The internet shifted things along massively and word of mouth becomes a blog or a website. Then you get visitors! Now several epochs later as Danny alluded to earlier, folk on UKC report fill ins just about everywhere. I now live in Ariege, France and even though there are lots of boulders, documentation is maddeningly scarce, no one seems to care! :boohoo:
-
I've moved to Scotland from the Peak and it would seem clear to me that the intensity of peak bouldering recording is in part based on the pre-existing level of documentation. A process of continuous re-appraisal of the boundary between worthy of record seems to take place with every record.
I think it's also closely related to how developed an area is. If you're in an area with plenty of good quality, untouched rock I suspect most people would put up the better quality new stuff before moving on the more eliminate/filler stuff.
-
If you just start the process at the "record eliminates" everyone quite frankly thinks your mad.
You can record eliminates in fairly exhausted crags and people will still think you’re mad :whistle:
-
I will say that some stuff probably isn't worth recording but also if someone does record it I would never be mad at them and and the idea of getting upset about someone else's list of bits of rock they did some climbing on to be vaguely laughable
-
Even chossy shit heaps that look terrible and climb even worse are worth documenting. They still have value for training, getting strong on rock rather than plastic, and building a pyramid. They still exist outside, where it is generally pleasant to spend time. And they still give more options and thus draw people away from honeypot crags.
Plus it's all down to taste, one man's chossy shit heap can be another man's crescent arete.
-
1. Things that are tosh by consensus don't need names and grades, and should be wiped from the ledger. Not everything needs to be documented (Carn Brea traverses).
2. Things that are good-to-amazing are almost always worth documenting (this doesn't imply the need for a name or grade) unless there's a good access/ecological issue not to. (Isles of Scilly blocs look amazing)
1. is a hill that I'd die on, having already seen a link to the Carn Brea traverse. UKC is a total cesspit of claiming for the sake of claiming, someone would claim mantling into a urinal if they could give it a suitable grade and 3 stars.
That is a bit less contentious though, I presume any half-way sane person would draw the line a lot higher than it's current subterranean level, in terms of what is worth documenting - and guidebook writers generally tend to do so. Thankfully there are usually matters of facts about a problem such as line, independence, rock quality, situation, balance, etc that ensure that one man's shitty choss heap is definitely not another man's Crescent Arete in terms of objective quality.
Voluntarily abstaining from documenting high quality lines for the sake of philosophical principles or the romance of others' discoveries is a different matter. Albeit maybe not a popular one - unless it's prescribed by consensus, like Grinah Stones, maybe!
Never mind, I agree with not documenting everything. Scilly Isles have long been known to contain good bouldering and those that have climbed there have often opted into the 'not documenting' camp. I've always respected that and if I had gone, would have done the same. People like Bob .... climbed on the Scillies and as with his problems on Carn Brea kept notes in a little book, so stuff was recorded just not publicly. I've climbed new problems on Carn Brea and if I thought they were good, documented them and if they were not so good I wouldn't bother. My guess (with some knowledge too) is that in the far west of Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, there will be hundreds of undocumented problems, most of them not that hard or even good
I'm pretty sure this is a fairly common approach, especially if the protagonists are not that interested in issues such as 'promotion, accessibility, sustainability and growth within our sport'.
This is interesting to read though. Is universal documentation a necessary or important part of "promotion, accessibility, sustainability and growth within our sport"??
-
New things I've done, which are mostly trad and bouldering and a tiny bit of sport, fall into three categories:
1. Things I think are worth recording properly and I want my name to them.
Rationale: I think they are good and worthwhile and other people will enjoy them. Partly I do have an ego (sometimes these things have taken a fair bit of effort to clean and climb, for which I deserve some recognition!), and partly it's nice to be able to connect, however distantly, with those who climb them later.
2. Things I think are worth recording in brief.
Rationale: Stuff which isn't that great but perhaps looks good from a distance (so others needn't waste their time) or may have appeal for keen locals (so the obvious benefits of making the information available). I don't care about putting my name to stuff like this, but guidebook writers usually prefer having FA details, which is fine.
3. Things that aren't worth recording.
I've soloed about on stuff in remote locations that, in the balance of value to the community vs. likelihood of anyone going there and having as good a time as they could have elsewhere, simply aren't worth the amount of anyone's attention that it would take to put across that it's not worth their attention.
I climbed a three pitch route in an obscure part of Llanberis Pass last week (in a bid to gain height in an interesting way without being in the sun) that was wandering and vegetated but no less engaging and continuous than the named route we had climbed lower down, but to me definitely wasn't worth writing up.
-
1. Things that are tosh by consensus don't need names and grades, and should be wiped from the ledger. Not everything needs to be documented (Carn Brea traverses).
2. Things that are good-to-amazing are almost always worth documenting (this doesn't imply the need for a name or grade) unless there's a good access/ecological issue not to. (Isles of Scilly blocs look amazing)
1. is a hill that I'd die on, having already seen a link to the Carn Brea traverse. UKC is a total cesspit of claiming for the sake of claiming, someone would claim mantling into a urinal if they could give it a suitable grade and 3 stars.
That is a bit less contentious though, I presume any half-way sane person would draw the line a lot higher than it's current subterranean level, in terms of what is worth documenting - and guidebook writers generally tend to do so. Thankfully there are usually matters of facts about a problem such as line, independence, rock quality, situation, balance, etc that ensure that one man's shitty choss heap is definitely not another man's Crescent Arete in terms of objective quality.
Voluntarily abstaining from documenting high quality lines for the sake of philosophical principles or the romance of others' discoveries is a different matter. Albeit maybe not a popular one - unless it's prescribed by consensus, like Grinah Stones, maybe!
Never mind, I agree with not documenting everything. Scilly Isles have long been known to contain good bouldering and those that have climbed there have often opted into the 'not documenting' camp. I've always respected that and if I had gone, would have done the same. People like Bob .... climbed on the Scillies and as with his problems on Carn Brea kept notes in a little book, so stuff was recorded just not publicly. I've climbed new problems on Carn Brea and if I thought they were good, documented them and if they were not so good I wouldn't bother. My guess (with some knowledge too) is that in the far west of Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, there will be hundreds of undocumented problems, most of them not that hard or even good
I'm pretty sure this is a fairly common approach, especially if the protagonists are not that interested in issues such as 'promotion, accessibility, sustainability and growth within our sport'.
This is interesting to read though. Is universal documentation a necessary or important part of "promotion, accessibility, sustainability and growth within our sport"??
I suppose my question would be
Why does it matter if someone puts their problem on UKC, even if you think it's shit. Does it actually cause any measurable harm at all? Is that it causes you annoyance something for you to work on rather than for them to change?
I am not saying I have the answers but I struggle to find an objective, reasonable issue with someone putting a "crap" problem on UKC
-
Not really. Depends on the person, although if they’re not going to sing about their new FA, they probably don’t care if someone else does instead.
If someone climbs a rock in a wood and doesn't record it, was the ascent actually made?
-
Why does it matter if someone puts their problem on UKC, even if you think it's shit. Does it actually cause any measurable harm at all? Is that it causes you annoyance something for you to work on rather than for them to change?
I am not saying I have the answers but I struggle to find an objective, reasonable issue with someone putting a "crap" problem on UKC
The problem is first ascentionists tend to have an inflated view of how good their problems are and UKC allows people to add new entries and assign stars to them. The starring system works in guidebooks because there is consensus; it doesn't work when the FA and their gang of mates decide that although their 'first ascent' is a filthy eliminate it actually 'climbs really well' so is worthy of 3 stars. It also just clogs up the logbooks and prevents people getting a clear look at the crag. If people must add their shit eliminates they should definitely be under a separate heading labelled as such.
I do tend to agree that if a crag is unrecorded theres little damage done by recording it for posterity and to give locals exploration options etc. Adding pointless eliminates to established crags is what the above is aimed at.
-
Why does it matter if someone puts their problem on UKC, even if you think it's shit. Does it actually cause any measurable harm at all? Is that it causes you annoyance something for you to work on rather than for them to change?
I am not saying I have the answers but I struggle to find an objective, reasonable issue with someone putting a "crap" problem on UKC
This is an interesting question, because I find it pretty annoying myself.
I think it's mainly that the volume of stuff makes it harder to sort wheat from chaff when you're browsing on there. I'd have pretty much no problem if shite was flagged as shite, but sometimes people give shite stars, which is irritating partly in the way that people being wrong on the internet is always annoying (which is arguably more the problem of the annoyed/me) and partly because it's a waste of other people's/my attention.
-
I think it's mainly that the volume of stuff makes it harder to sort wheat from chaff when you're browsing on there. I'd have pretty much no problem if shite was flagged as shite, but sometimes people give shite stars, which is irritating partly in the way that people being wrong on the internet is always annoying (which is arguably more the problem of the annoyed/me) and partly because it's a waste of other people's/my attention.
It feels like an admin problem to me, rather than something inherent in adding lots of stuff. After all, the whole point of something like UKC is that there's lots of flexibility to search/filter through climbs. I quite like the approach used at parisellas where there's a separate section for the more eliminate stuff https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/parisellas_cave-3422/#training_links_and_other_eliminates (in lieu of UKC putting a load of development effort in to tools and/or people putting a load of effort in to tidying up existing entries).
Pretty sure FAs having a high opinion of their new stuff has been a problem long before UKC existed!
-
I agree it's an admin problem. But volunteer moderators don't have the authority (nor the incentives) of guidebook writers, so demoting Keen Youth's new wonderline to the Shit Problems section is liable to cause offence :lol:
-
Sectioning off the linkups and variations is what I've done on the Nesscliffe UKC page as well. Up lines and main traverses in the main bit, then the endlessly tedious links in another section. I think a few Churnet crag mods do the same thing, and I think it works quite well.
-
My problem with all sorts of eliminates/links/crap being listed on UKC is that in the logbook format everything is given equal weight and significance. So a relative newbie that uses UKC in place of a guidebook (as some do) won't get any idea of which are the crag classics or their historical significance. But then, maybe I'm old school because I think those things are important...
-
I thought the discussion was about what the historical record and guide books should reflect but it seems now to be about what quality controls should be in place on UKC. With regard to the latter it’s not hard to work out whether someone has genuinely found a new crag with loads of three star problems or just got a bit over enthusiastic about some rock they’ve found. My advice would be not to travel from Sheffield to a quarry in Somerset on the strength of a UKC logbook entry alone.
Most entries of the type we are talking about are accompanied by pictures helpfully showing what bits of tree root you can pull on, which foot ledges are out of bounds and whether or not you can use the top of the waist high crag for hands.
-
There is a huge underlying tension in the UKC logbooks arising from a double function.
Are they a record of climbs/problems or are they a record of people's activity?
If they are an activity diary then it makes sense to log anything and everything. It's nice to remember that day you climbed a problem one handed, or missed out the resting jug etc. This clashes with their function as a record of routes as it just fills them with chaff.
-
Why does it matter if someone puts their problem on UKC, even if you think it's shit. Does it actually cause any measurable harm at all? Is that it causes you annoyance something for you to work on rather than for them to change?
I am not saying I have the answers but I struggle to find an objective, reasonable issue with someone putting a "crap" problem on UKC
The problem is first ascentionists tend to have an inflated view of how good their problems are and UKC allows people to add new entries and assign stars to them. The starring system works in guidebooks because there is consensus; it doesn't work when the FA and their gang of mates decide that although their 'first ascent' is a filthy eliminate it actually 'climbs really well' so is worthy of 3 stars. It also just clogs up the logbooks and prevents people getting a clear look at the crag. If people must add their shit eliminates they should definitely be under a separate heading labelled as such.
I do tend to agree that if a crag is unrecorded theres little damage done by recording it for posterity and to give locals exploration options etc. Adding pointless eliminates to established crags is what the above is aimed at.
It's amazing how many new 'problems' have been added lately. Obsessive logging (which is me included!) seems to make people reluctant to walk away empty handed. I try not to care but the amount of inflated starring is annoying.
Here's an example that annoyed me https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/caley_crags-540/one_squirrels-641886?lgn=113303 (https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/caley_crags-540/one_squirrels-641886?lgn=113303)
This starts halfway along an established problem. Surely either get good or GTFO? The old Caley guide describes the problems as those you can do and those you can't :P
-
Giving it a V grade irks me more.
-
Here's an example that annoyed me https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/caley_crags-540/one_squirrels-641886?lgn=113303 (https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/caley_crags-540/one_squirrels-641886?lgn=113303)
I can't decide what's worse, claiming it in the first place, naming it "One squirrels", or that fact the moderator hasn't done anything about it yet ;)
-
Here's an example that annoyed me https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/caley_crags-540/one_squirrels-641886?lgn=113303 (https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/caley_crags-540/one_squirrels-641886?lgn=113303)
I can't decide what's worse, claiming it in the first place, naming it "One squirrels", or that fact the moderator hasn't done anything about it yet ;)
I feel like deleting it at this stage would be too mean to those who have logged it. I'll just remove the stars and put in a bonfire section.
-
My advice would be not to travel from Sheffield to a quarry in Somerset on the strength of a UKC logbook entry alone.
Most entries of the type we are talking about are accompanied by pictures helpfully showing what bits of tree root you can pull on, which foot ledges are out of bounds and whether or not you can use the top of the waist high crag for hands.
:lol: very good.
Yeah the discussion seems to have moved on to slagging of shite on UKC. No doubt it will inevitably end up discussing mediocre Yorkshire scrittle eliminates as usual ::)
Edit: And One Squirrels does look like a better and more logical line in the topo picture :-\
-
To go back to the OP:
I think leaving stuff 'for the intrepid to rediscover' is fine, but it seems daft for a guidebook writer to go out of their way to do so.
Friend of Fiend's view: "Each time you do that with a problem you might give 10 people the simple pleasure of doing that problem you've described and documented, but you might prevent one or more people having the much deeper, more exciting, long-lasting and intimate pleasure of discovering that problem for themselves and climbing it as for the 'first time'" seems contrived - deliberately withholding information to preserve some imagined reward for someone in future. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't say I necessarily get greater reward from finding new problems than doing established ones - it's just different, and it's certainly special if they're really good, but what I enjoy about exploration is the possibility of finding gems, not doing any old thing simply to have been the first. So the notion of prioritising that one explorer's experience over ten others' seems shaky to me.
And if it is part of the same question as resisting the temptation to retro-claim, it's giving the future claimant a weirdly engineered experience - they may not know that at the time, but if I found out afterwards that my 'discovery' was well known about but people had withheld the information with the express purpose of making me feel more intrepid or something, it would definitely put a retrospective taint on the experience.
-
And if it is part of the same question as resisting the temptation to retro-claim, it's giving the future claimant a weirdly engineered experience - they may not know that at the time, but if I found out afterwards that my 'discovery' was well known about but people had withheld the information with the express purpose of making me feel more intrepid or something, it would definitely put a retrospective taint on the experience.
Im not sure I agree with this, though I guess it depends on how the info is withheld. Going to the grinah stones example from a few months ago (crag in the peak where approach details are available but problems haven't been recorded), I feel like you're going in to it knowing that what you're climbing may well have been climbed before, but you still get that fun creative aspect of imagining lines and not knowing any grades. I think there's value in that, and I think that documenting such a venue would definitely detract from the available experience (especially for the weak willed like myself who can't help but browse guidebooks/ukc).
I think it's also a question of balance. In an area like the peak where crags and problems are recorded in meticulous detail, leaving something for people who want something a little more exploratory is a worthwhile goal. I don't think this matters so much in areas where there's a lot more scope for development.
-
"Each time you do that with a problem you might give 10 people the simple pleasure of doing that problem you've described and documented, but you might prevent one or more people having the much deeper, more exciting, long-lasting and intimate pleasure of discovering that problem for themselves and climbing it as for the 'first time'"
Also, chances are it may never be found or climbed, and disappear under a carpet of moss / leaves / mud never to be climbed again, thus denying the one or more the potential notional pleasure.
-
Im not sure I agree with this, though I guess it depends on how the info is withheld.
For sure, the example you give is different. I was thinking in terms of Fiend's premise about 'could you keep your mouth shut about retro-claims', which would suggest people thinking they were discovering the place for the first time.
-
Actually it was "could you resist claiming in the first place?". But the same question could also apply to retro-claims...
-
Actually it was "could you resist claiming in the first place?". But the same question could also apply to retro-claims...
You did mention both at the end of the OP.
-
LOL, so I did. That was a long time ago and my brain is pretty addled.
My friend tasked me at the time: "Go out and find some esoteric pile of bollox, do a genuinely good problem on it, but don't claim it nor get any evidence of it". I did try to do that and did find a good line, and then ended up accidentally going back to the crag with, errr, the local guidebook author :whatever:
-
My friend tasked me at the time: "Go out and find some esoteric pile of bollox, do a genuinely good problem on it, but don't claim it nor get any evidence of it". I did try to do that and did find a good line, and then ended up accidentally going back to the crag with, errr, the local guidebook author :whatever:
I find I care less about these things with time. Just after I've done something, I'm strongly compelled to share the information, but if I do forget or not get around to it for some reason, after a while it doesn't seem so important...
Having said that, if I saw someone bigging up some duff thing I'd half forgotten about on Insta as their awesome new find, I'd probably be roused... :smirk:
-
Why does it matter if someone puts their problem on UKC, even if you think it's shit. Does it actually cause any measurable harm at all? Is that it causes you annoyance something for you to work on rather than for them to change?
I am not saying I have the answers but I struggle to find an objective, reasonable issue with someone putting a "crap" problem on UKC
The problem is first ascentionists tend to have an inflated view of how good their problems are and UKC allows people to add new entries and assign stars to them. The starring system works in guidebooks because there is consensus; it doesn't work when the FA and their gang of mates decide that although their 'first ascent' is a filthy eliminate it actually 'climbs really well' so is worthy of 3 stars. It also just clogs up the logbooks and prevents people getting a clear look at the crag. If people must add their shit eliminates they should definitely be under a separate heading labelled as such.
I do tend to agree that if a crag is unrecorded theres little damage done by recording it for posterity and to give locals exploration options etc. Adding pointless eliminates to established crags is what the above is aimed at.
Is that a problem? So what if people put stuff on there? What is "clogging it up?" Why is it it a problem for you if someone puts a problem you dont like on UKC? Have you tried it? Even if you did is that you didn't like it relevant? Why should it not be there?
I am sure that you can come up with reasons but essentially they'll come down to "I don't like it" and to that I ask, without any clear answer myself, is that a problem with the person putting up the climb? Or is it a problem within us.
-
Also I don't find "it separates the wheat from the chaff" particularly convincing. Says who? And since when did all the stuff that's been on there for years and repeated loads become good? There's loads of absolute shite that have been printed in guidebooks for decades and nobody complains about because of what?
I think people should be honest; they don't like people putting up problems they don't think are good on UKC because they feel that that climb/climber doesn't have the requisite pedigree to be doing FAs. Quite frankly I feel like sometimes the mockery of people's enthusiastic FAs verges on the childish. And I've seen some that don't appeal but if I've an issue with them being recorded that's for me to self-examine more than anything.
-
Is that a problem? So what if people put stuff on there? What is "clogging it up?" Why is it it a problem for you if someone puts a problem you dont like on UKC? Have you tried it? Even if you did is that you didn't like it relevant? Why should it not be there?
The problem is it can be hard to tell how good a crag genuinely is. For example, if you look at https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/forest_rock-1171/ you'd most likely get a different impression from what you'll experience if you go there.
-
I agree with Wellsy. I don’t think there is a problem with recording new things, especially if someone has taken their time to explore and fine something, cleaning it and climbing it, they have every right to record it if they want.
I think throwing shade on that isn’t really a great thing to do.
I personally wouldn’t record an eliminate as a separate problem, if I logged it on UKC I’d probably just put it in my personal notes, but there are plenty of old exiting eliminates even printed in guide books, just look at Crack N Pockets on the trackside boulder at curbar, the guide book says it’s 6b+, c if you don’t use the seam and 7a if you eliminate the seam and the crack. How is that eliminate any different to someone recording an eliminate now? And why should one be printed on paper and others be scoffed at?
-
Is that a problem? So what if people put stuff on there? What is "clogging it up?" Why is it it a problem for you if someone puts a problem you dont like on UKC? Have you tried it? Even if you did is that you didn't like it relevant? Why should it not be there?
I am sure that you can come up with reasons but essentially they'll come down to "I don't like it" and to that I ask, without any clear answer myself, is that a problem with the person putting up the climb? Or is it a problem within us.
Also I don't find "it separates the wheat from the chaff" particularly convincing. Says who? And since when did all the stuff that's been on there for years and repeated loads become good? There's loads of absolute shite that have been printed in guidebooks for decades and nobody complains about because of what?
I think people should be honest; they don't like people putting up problems they don't think are good on UKC because they feel that that climb/climber doesn't have the requisite pedigree to be doing FAs. Quite frankly I feel like sometimes the mockery of people's enthusiastic FAs verges on the childish. And I've seen some that don't appeal but if I've an issue with them being recorded that's for me to self-examine more than anything.
Maybe it does come down to 'I don't like it'. Not liking something sounds to me like a good enough reason to say that you don't like it. As for 'is it a problem within us?', I think you're being overly philosophical. Several people have given pretty legit reasons for why they don't like it, reasons perhaps that you don't agree with, but ultimately all preferences for anything are internal. Does that mean we shouldn't express them? In this case it's not something that's actually very important or consequential, so there isn't a high price on giving an opinion.
Your follow-up post has a couple of dubious assumptions: first, that there's no problem with dross that's been there for longer, and secondly (and more offensively) that it's believed the climbers in question don't have the 'pedigree'. The second may well be true in some cases, but claiming that that's all that's going on is frankly bullshit.
-
The problem is it can be hard to tell how good a crag genuinely is. For example, if you look at https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/forest_rock-1171/ you'd most likely get a different impression from what you'll experience if you go there.
I’ve not been, wait are you telling there’s not 23 3 star (and therefore of a quality notable at a national level) problems in that little cave? 😂
-
Is that a problem? So what if people put stuff on there? What is "clogging it up?" Why is it it a problem for you if someone puts a problem you dont like on UKC? Have you tried it? Even if you did is that you didn't like it relevant? Why should it not be there?
I am sure that you can come up with reasons but essentially they'll come down to "I don't like it" and to that I ask, without any clear answer myself, is that a problem with the person putting up the climb? Or is it a problem within us.
Also I don't find "it separates the wheat from the chaff" particularly convincing. Says who? And since when did all the stuff that's been on there for years and repeated loads become good? There's loads of absolute shite that have been printed in guidebooks for decades and nobody complains about because of what?
I think people should be honest; they don't like people putting up problems they don't think are good on UKC because they feel that that climb/climber doesn't have the requisite pedigree to be doing FAs. Quite frankly I feel like sometimes the mockery of people's enthusiastic FAs verges on the childish. And I've seen some that don't appeal but if I've an issue with them being recorded that's for me to self-examine more than anything.
Maybe it does come down to 'I don't like it'. Not liking something sounds to me like a good enough reason to say that you don't like it. As for 'is it a problem within us?', I think you're being overly philosophical. Several people have given pretty legit reasons for why they don't like it, reasons perhaps that you don't agree with, but ultimately all preferences for anything are internal. Does that mean we shouldn't express them? In this case it's not something that's actually very important or consequential, so there isn't a high price on giving an opinion.
Your follow-up post has a couple of dubious assumptions: first, that there's no problem with dross that's been there for longer, and secondly (and more offensively) that it's believed the climbers in question don't have the 'pedigree'. The second may well be true in some cases, but claiming that that's all that's going on is frankly bullshit.
I don't think it is tbh, I think people's attitudes towards stuff that gets put up is somewhat shaped by their perception of who did it
Sure you can say "I don't like it" I'm just saying that a lot of the objections just come down to a general emotional reaction rather than a logical reason why the recording of whatever climb is a bad thing.
In fact in this thread we've seen people saying that if they saw someone showing off their FA on Instagram they'd get annoyed by it, to which I say with the greatest of respect okay, so? Who cares?
I posted what I thought might have been an FA on this forum and tbh it was a pretty unpleasant experience, not what I expected at all. These days I'm a bit tougher and I'd just tell some people to spin on my middle finger if they don't like it, but I definitely feel like some people are more objecting to keen newcomers than they are the actual problems. Just my feelings, of course.
-
but I definitely feel like some people are more objecting to keen newcomers than they are the actual problems. Just my feelings, of course.
I completely agree with this.
-
I wonder if some of the grumbles on this subject could be ameliorated somewhat if first ascentionists didn't give things stars, and generally communicated a bit more along the lines of 'I did this, it might be shit but go and have a look if you fancy'. Maybe that's too British but I guess it's at least in line with how bouldering developed, and the opposite of the hyperbolic nonsense that gets tossed around on social media. In the context of UKC logbooks that could mean that there isn't the option for FAs to decide on stars and these instead are based on voting; admittedly that'd open things up to abuse (bin voting problems because you don't like the FA) and you might still end up with the FA's mates giving things three stars either sycophantically or because they don't know any better, but it would also get us away from individual subjectivity and towards consensus on quality. And those two issues could be solved somewhat by making votes public, as I do think that some people get a bit weird. I've even spotted what I'm pretty sure are instances of people consistently voting hard for the grade on their own FAs...
I guess that, as with difficulty (first of the grade therefore best climb ever, etc. etc.), it's quite hard to be objective about quality when you've invested so much in a first ascent - and that ranges from people purposely under-starring their own problems because they're aware of this issue of subjectivity, right through to people that have had the time of their life coming up with shite eliminates and not recognising that others will likely have a less fulfilling experience. As Remus notes, though, it's pretty tedious (in a deeply first-world kind of way) to have to figure out which camp a crag falls into when everything has either zero or three stars, so making this process democratic would be good to my mind.
-
I definitely feel like some people are more objecting to keen newcomers than they are the actual problems.
Well, if it makes any difference to your feeling on this, some of the most egregious generators of duff eliminates that I'm aware of have been around a lot longer than I have!
I'll admit it's a little annoying when people with very narrow experience make big claims about the relative quality of their output - I don't bear them any animus though, and to my mind it's a separate (though obviously related) issue.
-
I guess there is an inherent tension between the initial subjective experience (of a FA) and the secondary objective representation of that experience. As I get older and grumpier and see the transition of bouldering from something obscure, wilful and creative into a full blown sport, I tend to see documentation as one of the problems.
Edit; but I do of course indulge in documentation myself.
-
I think people should be honest; they don't like people putting up problems they don't think are good on UKC because they feel that that climb/climber doesn't have the requisite pedigree to be doing FAs.
Now that's a top steaming mound of horseshit if I ever smelled one! The problem and the ascentionist are two separate entities, it's perfectly possible to like and respect a climber and despair at some of the dross they claim, or equally possible to think that someone is a massive choad-scraping but fully respect the validity and quality of the climbs they put up.
Remus has adequately demonstrated the wheat vs chaff issue (which might be a genuine reason for some of the objectors, unlike your guesstimate of their reason!).
-
Is it possible to despair at both the climber AND their climbs? Asking for a friend.
Plenty of people have boiled down the main annoyance (for some) - it’s not the recording as such, it’s the over-starring which then makes good climbs less identifiable in a database compared to poor climbs. Recording local eliminates as the same ‘quality rating’ as the best boulders of their grade nationally is clearly insanity. Cue starring debate.
-
I think people should be honest; they don't like people putting up problems they don't think are good on UKC because they feel that that climb/climber doesn't have the requisite pedigree to be doing FAs.
Now that's a top steaming mound of horseshit if I ever smelled one! The problem and the ascentionist are two separate entities, it's perfectly possible to like and respect a climber and despair at some of the dross they claim, or equally possible to think that someone is a massive choad-scraping but fully respect the validity and quality of the climbs they put up.
Remus has adequately demonstrated the wheat vs chaff issue (which might be a genuine reason for some of the objectors, unlike your guesstimate of their reason!).
You may say that but I absolutely think it colours the view of some people, consciously or not. Is it the only source of objection? No. But I think it is true that it is there. Those who are respected members of the community doing first ascents (such as yourself, despite any horror you might feel at the suggestion ;) ) may not notice it but I believe others do and have, in fact.
-
Some people could put a mid 7s grade and two stars on mantling a wart on Fiend's bellend and people would be falling over themselves to tongue their arse in admiration.
Other people might put a lot of time and effort into something they think is cool only to get told it is trash! Resulting in them crying into their pillow for days. Shameful.
-
I completely understand the point in regards to people giving their problems too many stars, however there seems to be a culture of bin voting problems on UKC too, which to me seems as bad as people being trigger happy with stars.
What’s more sad, someone going out and climbing something they think is new and maybe getting a bit too over excited, or bin voting something you haven’t tried because you don’t like the idea of it.
Making voting public would maybe solve some of the issues but also maybe just trying to have more of an open discussion on UKC rather than just bin voting.
-
I think you raise a fair point Wellsy, about subconsciously assuming your opinion of a problem just because of who FA'd it. In some cases it might be reasonably harmless, like the FA is a lanky streak of piss so it's probably reachy, or it'll be a crimpy sandbag from known crimp weapon. In other cases though we might end up associating other developers with scrappy lowballs, shit eliminates, or even tedious there-and-back traverses.
I know I've been guilty of this myself, I can't imagine I'm the only one...
Also to the point of mass-bin-voting routes, I think one should only be able to vote on grade and quality if they log a route themselves, even if it's a DNF.
-
Some people could put a mid 7s grade and two stars on mantling a wart on Fiend's bellend and people would be falling over themselves to tongue their arse in admiration.
Other people might put a lot of time and effort into something they think is cool only to get told it is trash! Resulting in them crying into their pillow for days. Shameful.
How awful. I wonder what would happen if they got criticism about something important.
-
I never vote on UKC but honestly I'm surprised you can log an opinion of the climb unless you logged that you tried it. I'd definitely say that should be there
-
Some people could put a mid 7s grade and two stars on mantling a wart on Fiend's bellend and people would be falling over themselves to tongue their arse in admiration.
Other people might put a lot of time and effort into something they think is cool only to get told it is trash! Resulting in them crying into their pillow for days. Shameful.
How awful. I wonder what would happen if they got criticism about something important.
When I posted something at Stanage Far Left I'd done to see if anyone had done it before, you proceeded to be an arse about it and say I'd climbed it badly and ignored an obvious left handhold.
When the person (a well known FA'er) who had done the problem before me came in to say they'd already done it but they agreed that using the left handhold actually made it harder, you curiously did not express any kind of similar opinion to them?
I mean, I dunno who you are and I don't hold any hard feeling, I've been an arse many times myself, and I can certainly appreciate that some people through their wealth of experience will rightly have more sway in terms of opinion. Totally fair. But there is a decent way and a less decent way to go about it no? And this is exactly what I mean by saying that some people can do something and people will be fine with it, others will get a slagging off, so I suppose I should appreciate the reminder really
-
Wellsy I’m not trying have row with you. But you complain about my criticism of what you’d climbed and videoed. You now have made a point using fiend as an example in somewhat derogatory terms but that’s ok.
Given what I said at the time and I wasn’t the only one and your still upset about a problem you didn’t even climb. I wonder what’s going here.
-
I was making light of the topic, no offense intended and apologies if caused. And I'm honestly not bothered by that whole affair (I'm very proud of that bit of climbing as it happens), but I do think that it was an example of the kind of phenomenon I'm talking about, and that I've seen in other places since, and other people have mentioned feeling the same way.
As always the disclaimer of "its only climbing it doesn't really matter" applies ofc
-
I'd just give everything 3 stars because all climbing is great ;D
-
This starts halfway along an established problem. Surely either get good or GTFO? The old Caley guide describes the problems as those you can do and those you can't :P
I have to declare an interest here; I added the Kidneystone stand start to UKC as I thought it was a good problem in its own right. So I dunno, sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. To take the Lakes as an example, way too many problems there have totally arbitrary one move sit starts when one could pull on more logically higher up. I think I've added some of these stand starts as well in the past, which I'm convinced are often better than the 'original' problem...so who knows.
-
Is that a problem? So what if people put stuff on there? What is "clogging it up?" Why is it it a problem for you if someone puts a problem you dont like on UKC? Have you tried it? Even if you did is that you didn't like it relevant? Why should it not be there?
I am sure that you can come up with reasons but essentially they'll come down to "I don't like it" and to that I ask, without any clear answer myself, is that a problem with the person putting up the climb? Or is it a problem within us.
My answers to all the above is absolutely 'I don't like it!' as you suggest. Clogging it up has been explained by numerous people but essentially amounts to not being able to tell which problems are good and which are not. We could have a metaphysical discussion about the nature of quality and what constitutes 'good' climbing, but I feel like its been fairly well established.
As for whether its a problem with people putting up the climb, thats absolutely not the case; I couldn't care less who did it. I actually think bouldering first ascent details shouldn't be in future guides unless they are nationally significant (Careless Torque, Bosi/Roberts hard stuff etc), I just don't think it matters. As for the bin voting thing I have heard of precisely one incidence of this ever happening; wasn't aware it was a plague sweeping ukc (if indeed it is).
Basically what Pete said;
Is it possible to despair at both the climber AND their climbs? Asking for a friend.
Plenty of people have boiled down the main annoyance (for some) - it’s not the recording as such, it’s the over-starring which then makes good climbs less identifiable in a database compared to poor climbs. Recording local eliminates as the same ‘quality rating’ as the best boulders of their grade nationally is clearly insanity. Cue starring debate.
-
This starts halfway along an established problem. Surely either get good or GTFO? The old Caley guide describes the problems as those you can do and those you can't :P
I have to declare an interest here; I added the Kidneystone stand start to UKC as I thought it was a good problem in its own right. So I dunno, sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. To take the Lakes as an example, way too many problems there have totally arbitrary one move sit starts when one could pull on more logically higher up. I think I've added some of these stand starts as well in the past, which I'm convinced are often better than the 'original' problem...so who knows.
See in my opinion kidneystone doesn’t need a stand start. It’s all very subjective. :shrug:
-
The problem is it can be hard to tell how good a crag genuinely is. For example, if you look at https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/forest_rock-1171/ you'd most likely get a different impression from what you'll experience if you go there.
I think it's obvious from the Forest Rock UKC page that you are looking at a training venue full of linkups, variations, eliminates and sitstarts.
For example, nobody who is at all familiar with UK bouldering training venues and problem naming is looking at these sections below and expecting to find anything other than a bunch of variations on the same problem(s):
Lucid interval f7C
Lucid Interval Sit Start f8A
Lucid Interval of Insanity f7C+
One Clear Moment f8A
One Clear Moment Sit Start f8A+
One Clear Moment of Insanity f8A
One Clear Moment of Insanity Sit Start f8A+
Sorcerer f5+
Sorcerer Arete f7A
Saucy (boulder problem) f5
Saucy (sit-start) f6B
Sourcier f7A
Saucy Sorcerer f7A+
Awen f7B
Sorcerer Direct f6C+
34 of the other problems are included in the "Link Ups and Traverses" section, 2 more problems have "Traverse" in their name, and a handful of other problems have sitstart/low start/extension etc in their name.
-
… yet despite that, lots of them have been given the same quality rating as Careless Torque or Malc’s Arête. This is worthy of being challenged isn’t it? But then I question myself, as I think climbing an arbitrary line of drilled pockets across a quarried roof in parisellas cave to be an ace climbing experience worthy of the ‘3-star appendage’. (I note Rock Atrocity only gets two stars on ukc in a criminal act of understarring).
One of these things is (I presume) not like the others:
Malc’s Arête ***
Westside Story ***
Roof of a Baby Buddha ***
Saucy (sit start) ***
-
One of these things is (I presume) not like the others:
Malc’s Arête ***
Westside Story ***
Roof of a Baby Buddha ***
Saucy (sit start) ***
Definitely Rock Atrocity ** out of that list. Pretty sure Saucy SS has some sort of line. I did enjoy the trad at Forest Rock.
-
Some people could put a mid 7s grade and two stars on mantling a wart on Fiend's bellend and people would be falling over themselves to tongue their arse in admiration.
:lol: are you just appealing to my puerile potty humour to win me over in the debate??
You may say that but I absolutely think it colours the view of some people, consciously or not.
Sure it might be a bias for SOME people, but your original post didn't specify that, it gave that as the reason in general. Whilst I and others have straight up given other reasons. All I can say is that when I look at one of these.....things on UKC, I almost never know the person who is claiming them, but if it looks like a turd, sounds like a turd, and has enough rules to make it a rule-laden turd, it's probably a turd. Equally there are some climbers who come across as tedious scrotes with their relentlessly annoying personalities, and they can still put up some amazing-looking routes on the North York Moors
And yeah voting on UKC is as much of a shambles as everything else, I say that as the target of repeated photo down-voting (even once they removed the voting split information, you could still see it if there were few votes and a 1 vote on a clearly "at least decent" photo would skew it wildly).
In other aspects, I agree with SM09 about overriding bad starts that are just pointless extra moves for the sake of difficulty, and SDM raises a good point that it's quite obvious the most of Forest Rock is going to be LOG but arguably nearly as fun as the climbing wall if you like training on 8As.
-
… yet despite that, lots of them have been given the same quality rating as Careless Torque or Malc’s Arête. This is worthy of being challenged isn’t it? But then I question myself, as I think climbing an arbitrary line of drilled pockets across a quarried roof in parisellas cave to be an ace climbing experience worthy of the ‘3-star appendage’. (I note Rock Atrocity only gets two stars on ukc in a criminal act of understarring).
One of these things is (I presume) not like the others:
Malc’s Arête ***
Westside Story ***
Roof of a Baby Buddha ***
Saucy (sit start) ***
You're completely right on the star ratings being inflated, and on Rock Atrocity ;D
I've always done my little bit to try to bring some sanity to the star ratings at Forest Rock through my votes. I think Heathen Chemistry and Enchantress might be the only problems where I agree with the UKC stars.
I am the only person so far to ever vote 1-star for Saucy sit start so maybe we are the ones who are wrong :shrug:
-
Recording local eliminates as the same ‘quality rating’ as the best boulders of their grade nationally is clearly insanity.
I wonder if the cause of this is one of two related things.
1. People who haven't been around much, at least not recently, and who have therefore lost or have never gained much sense of perspective on quality. To be fair, there is an argument (though not one I agree with) for starring on a local rather than a national scale, and in the current climate there is plenty to justify not trotting around the country/globe to climb.
2. People whose pathway to bouldering has not connected them with broader aesthetics of climbing, such as the beauty of a feature and the logic of a line (not that you don't get similar things going on with trad and sport, but perhaps to a lesser extent). Perhaps rating quality purely on the moves has increased as the standard pathway into rock climbing has become indoor walls.
-
See in my opinion kidneystone doesn’t need a stand start. It’s all very subjective. :shrug:
I agree tbh, it was definitely something I did because I didn't do the sit that session. :lol: If it got moved to the 'pointless problems' section of the ukc page I wouldn't complain (not that I have any real stake compared to an FA though). More widely though I still think stand starts to established problems are often significantly more worthwhile than eliminate 'first ascents' (which are obviously nothing of the sort).
2. People whose pathway to bouldering has not connected them with broader aesthetics of climbing, such as the beauty of a feature and the logic of a line (not that you don't get similar things going on with trad and sport, but perhaps to a lesser extent). Perhaps rating quality purely on the moves has increased as the standard pathway into rock climbing has become indoor walls.
I agree with this. People talk about 'great moves', 'amazing moves', 'looks shit but climbs really well' and use this to justify star ratings on problems. Moves are obviously important but its not the only thing that counts (for me at least). You do see this with sport climbing as well (Raindogs being the obvious example of something that looks rubbish but climbs well) but its more isolated and often based on historic importance rather than being common.
-
Some people could put a mid 7s grade and two stars on mantling a wart on Fiend's bellend and people would be falling over themselves to tongue their arse in admiration.
:lol: are you just appealing to my puerile potty humour to win me over in the debate??
You may say that but I absolutely think it colours the view of some people, consciously or not.
Sure it might be a bias for SOME people, but your original post didn't specify that, it gave that as the reason in general. Whilst I and others have straight up given other reasons. All I can say is that when I look at one of these.....things on UKC, I almost never know the person who is claiming them, but if it looks like a turd, sounds like a turd, and has enough rules to make it a rule-laden turd, it's probably a turd. Equally there are some climbers who come across as tedious scrotes with their relentlessly annoying personalities, and they can still put up some amazing-looking routes on the North York Moors
And yeah voting on UKC is as much of a shambles as everything else, I say that as the target of repeated photo down-voting (even once they removed the voting split information, you could still see it if there were few votes and a 1 vote on a clearly "at least decent" photo would skew it wildly).
In other aspects, I agree with SM09 about overriding bad starts that are just pointless extra moves for the sake of difficulty, and SDM raises a good point that it's quite obvious the most of Forest Rock is going to be LOG but arguably nearly as fun as the climbing wall if you like training on 8As.
Just my own love of it ;D
I am sure some people don't care, I am pretty sure some people have their opinion coloured and maybe wouldn't even admit it to themselves!
As for UKC voting, a simple change as outlined above would probably be good. As for quality, I certainly base it on how it feels to climb it rather than look at it.
-
I'd just give everything 3 stars because all climbing is great ;D
Thanks Starfire.
-
As for quality, I certainly base it on how it feels to climb it rather than look at it.
Standard reduction of the concept of 'line' to 'what it looks like' ::)
Sure some things look like dirt but have good moves, just as some things look good but climb terribly, but it's rarely either/or and the best things are the full package: satisfying movement, pleasing haptics on the rock, visually compelling, logical, balanced, attractive setting, etc.
-
I'm not keen on haptick marks...
-
See in my opinion kidneystone doesn’t need a stand start. It’s all very subjective. :shrug:
I agree tbh, it was definitely something I did because I didn't do the sit that session. :lol: If it got moved to the 'pointless problems' section of the ukc page I wouldn't complain (not that I have any real stake compared to an FA though). More widely though I still think stand starts to established problems are often significantly more worthwhile than eliminate 'first ascents' (which are obviously nothing of the sort).
Not sure I fully agree with that. I put up an FA which was a low start “eliminate” to a stand start and in my opinion it climbs the feature more purely. For clarities sake I’m speaking of Applied Stress at Burbage South (https://www.instagram.com/tv/CdygvTSjuru/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=). Originally climbed by Sam Lawson from a stand using a bunch of kneebars even though it’s possibly one of the most aesthetic and pure narrow compression boulders in the Peak District. In my opinion it’s more worthwhile climbing it without kneebars on the sidewall and a much more decent challenge and overall more pure, even if it’s considered an eliminate.
Yet I was harassed about it on here and it was bin voted by a bunch of knobs. Their loss, the people that have actually bothered to try it have agreed that it’s a much better line. I even showed Sam who agreed that it looked like a good line so :shrug: in my opinion it was totally worth logging and documenting.
-
I'd just give everything 3 stars because all climbing is great ;D
This is as much a rationale for a system that gives everything no stars.
-
Thats fine if you think its worth logging and documenting but surely others are perfectly entitled to think it looks a bt shit if thats their view?
I'll be perfectly honest and say both the original with knees and the eliminate look a bit shit to me! (obviously not a reflection on you as we have never met, or on Sam!) Each to their own and all that but a lay down start with dabby potential doesn't do it for me. (I think the same about the low start to Zaff- dross). the way these have been added to the database seems broadly ok though; ie with no stars/1 star at most; they are there for those interested but don't pretend to be something they aren't, which is ultimately what we're discussing as its that which makes it hard to distinguish between problems.
The above is all meant with a smile rather than as a critique on how you choose to spend your free time! :) I quite often think the new problems on the Wedge vids look average to terrible as well!
-
I think all of those are covered by the term "aesthetics" and I'd agree they are all relevant but we all have our own particular aesthetic preferences and areas which are more or less important to us and those preferences mean that one person's 3 stars is another's 0 and vice versa.
-
See in my opinion kidneystone doesn’t need a stand start. It’s all very subjective. :shrug:
I agree tbh, it was definitely something I did because I didn't do the sit that session. :lol:
You still haven't done the sit :spank: ;)
Basically we're all guilty of something on this thread one way or another. I've overstarred FA's because Will Hunt forced me to (Silk Road). I try and be conservative with FA stars now (only Siege of Orleans deserves them truly).
On a side note, I don't think retro claims detract from the overall experience. You still go through the joys of finding, cleaning (breaking), sussing out the moves, worrying someone will find it, doing it, naming and grading it etc. Someone retro claiming doesnt suddenly take all of those experiences away from you (because you weren't aware).
I got retro'd by Paul Clarke recently, at a lower grade! :-[ do it long enough and you'll get the up on Bonjoy one day.
-
Thats fine if you think its worth logging and documenting but surely others are perfectly entitled to think it looks a bt shit if thats their view?
I'll be perfectly honest and say both the original with knees and the eliminate look a bit shit to me! (obviously not a reflection on you as we have never met, or on Sam!) Each to their own and all that but a lay down start with dabby potential doesn't do it for me. (I think the same about the low start to Zaff- dross). the way these have been added to the database seems broadly ok though; ie with no stars/1 star at most; they are there for those interested but don't pretend to be something they aren't, which is ultimately what we're discussing as its that which makes it hard to distinguish between problems.
The above is all meant with a smile rather than as a critique on how you choose to spend your free time! :) I quite often think the new problems on the Wedge vids look average to terrible as well!
I guess it depends on what you enjoy in climbing. For me it’s more about the challenge and movement than aesthetic, I’ve never cared about how a climb looks but more how I can move across it, I’m also a total sucker for compression prows so to me it’s a great line to climb. Though I would say I’ve put up great looking lines too (Carlos Torque for example) - but this then leads to what Wellsey has said, one man’s choss is another man’s gold, so you can’t just expect everyone to follow the same guidelines as you which is why this whole thread seems quite redundant :worms:
-
Regarding stars, I think people get very invested in their own sense of achievement without being willing to step back and draw broader comparisons. To me, a 1* problem is good, 2** is really very good and 3*** is awesome.
Throwing stars around devalues the system, especially when their absence does not mean the route or problem isn’t worthwhile.
Maybe we should go full ukc and have 3 downtick symbols for poor, awful and avoid at all costs.
-
Actually the thread as about the possibility of not documenting everything, including abstaining from claiming clearly good routes, rather than the merits or otherwise of claiming every last bit of choss - although discussing the latter is clearly more fun ;D
-
Yet I was harassed about it on here and it was bin voted by a bunch of knobs. Their loss, the people that have actually bothered to try it have agreed that it’s a much better line. I even showed Sam who agreed that it looked like a good line so :shrug: in my opinion it was totally worth logging and documenting.
In my opinion, that looks like that could be worth logging as Qui Gone Gym Low and graded using the easiest, non eliminate, sequence.
I'd say the same to Bonjoy/Sam/Fiend, just to clarify that it's nothing personal.
Obviously, my opinion is just that. So perhaps we should have a pole for every new climb to deem whether it's worthwhile documenting or not :smartass:
-
Massively off-topic but one quick thought: People being rude and bin-voting things en masse obviously isn't okay, but I feel like Qui Gone Gym and Applied Stress are both slightly convoluted ways of starting and finishing in the same place as The Kursk but without actually jamming the crack of The Kursk, and one way of looking at The Kursk is that it's a sit start to a three-star VS that starts in a grotty pit at the base of one of the most famous buttresses on grit and finishes on the holds that trad climbers pull on at (I seem to recall Grimer having something to do with this and I imagine got a real kick out of it). All bouldering involves an element of arbitrary rules that mean the arete/sidewall/floor is out for no other reason than the problem climbs better that way, but I can see how people might question giving a star to a problem that eliminates a technique on another problem (in that you're compressing the prow rather than using the easier kneebar sequence of Qui Gone Gym) which itself is a variant on a problem that itself is a sit start to a popular mid-grade trad route.
-
As for not documenting everything as per the OP, I find the proposition absurd. Why is it necessary to document things at all? I can see it has merits (imagine a world without guidebooks) but there’s really no necessity. Preserving a little bit of the unknown is a great thing.
-
Yet I was harassed about it on here and it was bin voted by a bunch of knobs. Their loss, the people that have actually bothered to try it have agreed that it’s a much better line. I even showed Sam who agreed that it looked like a good line so :shrug: in my opinion it was totally worth logging and documenting.
In my opinion, that looks like that could be worth logging as Qui Gone Gym Low and graded using the easiest, non eliminate, sequence.
I'd say the same to Bonjoy/Sam/Fiend, just to clarify that it's nothing personal.
Obviously, my opinion is just that. So perhaps we should have a pole for every new climb to deem whether it's worthwhile documenting or not :smartass:
If you sit below the bloc when you climb it it doesn’t feel at all like an eliminate. The back walls are so far behind that it feels more like dabbing than eliminating, sometimes these are perspective issues and it’s hard to tell from videos and pictures which again is a good reason why you shouldn’t judge a climb before you’ve sat underneath it, I think we’ve all thought something was easy/hard/different until we’ve gone to try it only for it to feel the opposite. Next time you’re at burbage south go see it in person and you’ll know what I mean.
In reply to Droyd, applied stress starts around 4 moves before qui gone gym and those 4 extra moves are hard and have nothing to do with the Kursk which starts further back in the crack. I still believe climbing the VERY obvious feature as a compression prow is the best variation of all 3 (the kneebar, the crack and the prow) - again, It might be one of the only narrow compression prows of its kind, why wouldn’t you want to climb it that way when it’s more pure?
My final point, if we’re gonna complain about eliminates on grit please can we remove all the green traverse eliminates including Ron’s Reach and any other of the many many eliminate climbs that exist on grit?
-
Throwing stars around devalues the system, especially when their absence does not mean the route or problem isn’t worthwhile.
The problem is people enjoy very different things in climbing and therefore starring stuff is even more of a stab in the dark than grading. Personally I think people tend to give lots of stars to things when they have an enjoyable experience on it, and that just doesn't correlate very well with whether someone else will have a good time on it.
One of the best climbing experiences I've ever had started off with 6m of soloing up a wet, moss encrusted slab where if you fell off you'd probably tool yourself in on a ledge before falling in the sea. For me the whole experience was transcendental, definitive 5 star stuff. On the other hand there's plenty of people who'd sooner have a bath in their own shit. How many stars do you give that?
People want to get on three star lines and have a good time, but it's not going to happen and I think getting too attached to stars is the issue, not the proliferation of stars.
-
One of the best climbing experiences I've ever had started off with 6m of soloing up a wet, moss encrusted slab where if you fell off you'd probably tool yourself in on a ledge before falling in the sea. For me the whole experience was transcendental, definitive 5 star stuff. On the other hand there's plenty of people who'd sooner have a bath in their own shit. How many stars do you give that?
Doesn't the fact that you're able to give it as an example illustrate that you're able to detach your experience from the 'objective' quality?
Conversely I've had an awful time on hallowed classics, but I can recognise that they are still outstanding routes.
-
more pure?
Eliminates are inherently less pure, IMO, since they're more artificial. But that's just me.
-
more pure?
Eliminates are inherently less pure, IMO, since they're more artificial. But that's just me.
The definition of pure is to not mix or adulter something. I would say by not using the assistance of the sidewalls you’re climbing something more purely in that specific style (very narrow compression)
-
My final point, if we’re gonna complain about eliminates on grit please can we remove all the green traverse eliminates including Ron’s Reach and any other of the many many eliminate climbs that exist on grit?
Yes please!! Unless they're beautiful and aesthic eliminates with fantastic moves and the bare minimum of logical rules.
I do believe I replied to your Applied Stress problem with something like "That's terrible beta for The Kursk" which was clearly because I despite this Carliios character and everything he stands for errrr hopefully recognisable as a joke because it's obviously quite different from the adjacent roof crack. Having a bit of a laugh about eliminates is not the same as fully h8ing on them (the latter being far more suitable for 3 star traverses on man-made Carn Brea monuments)
-
My final point, if we’re gonna complain about eliminates on grit please can we remove all the green traverse eliminates including Ron’s Reach and any other of the many many eliminate climbs that exist on grit?
Yes please!! Unless they're beautiful and aesthic eliminates with fantastic moves and the bare minimum of logical rules.
I do believe I replied to your Applied Stress problem with something like "That's terrible beta for The Kursk" which was clearly because I despite this Carliios character and everything he stands for errrr hopefully recognisable as a joke because it's obviously quite different from the adjacent roof crack. Having a bit of a laugh about eliminates is not the same as fully h8ing on them (the latter being far more suitable for 3 star traverses on man-made Carn Brea monuments)
Aha don’t worry it wasn’t you really, but the line did get mass bin voted along with every single one of my FAs, someone used the UKC bin vote bug to bin one of my lines 400 or so times!
-
Lol really? That's pretty laughable, what sad bugger is spending their time doing that?
-
Wel it can’t be Fiend or myself as we are both banned from UKC. :dance1:
-
A badge of honour I'd imagine? ;D
-
Unfortunately it means I post more shite on here. :lol:
-
Lol really? That's pretty laughable, what sad bugger is spending their time doing that?
Yes people really are that sad. I did ask the UKC devs if they would tell me who it was doing it but alas, they wouldn’t share :chair:
-
One of the best climbing experiences I've ever had started off with 6m of soloing up a wet, moss encrusted slab where if you fell off you'd probably tool yourself in on a ledge before falling in the sea. For me the whole experience was transcendental, definitive 5 star stuff. On the other hand there's plenty of people who'd sooner have a bath in their own shit. How many stars do you give that?
Doesn't the fact that you're able to give it as an example illustrate that you're able to detach your experience from the 'objective' quality?
Conversely I've had an awful time on hallowed classics, but I can recognise that they are still outstanding routes.
What's objective quality? I think there's things that make it more or less likely that someone will have a good time on a piece of rock (good line, comfortable holds, history etc.) but I think it's more a loose correlation rather than anything objectively good about it. Some people just don't really care about some aspects, paraphrasing Malc "I don't really care about the line, it's all about the individual moves".
-
I met a bloke in Cochamo who would have loved this thread, he was super psyched about his strict 'leave no trace' ascents - ie no cleaning, no chalk, and no telling anyone else what he'd climbed. He had the most enormous beard I've ever seen, possibly for the same reasons - I didn't ask...
For anyone who hasn't tried climbing un-cleaned rock in Cochamo, the natural state of a lot of the rock there is buried under an inch of moss with all the cracks full of mud and plants, so guess this proves that it takes all sorts?! He reckoned it was the purest form of ascent as it meant the exact same experience was still out there for anyone else to have. :shrug:
Also, Saucy (Sit Start) is really good :tease: (I genuinely have no memory of giving 3* to my own mediocre contributions to Forest Rock :guilty:)
-
What's objective quality?
That's a very dangerous question!
Source: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ;D
-
Source: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ;D
Funny you say that, all I could think of when I was typing that out was "This is so Zen and the Art..."
-
Seems bizarre to me that anyone would rate a climb based on how it looks. You can see whether a climb looks impressive by looking at it. You don't need stars to tell you, and there seems to be something a little odd a out taking someone's word for it that something looks good when you are able to look at it yourself. I always took star ratings to reflect the quality of movement/overall experience you have on a climb. This is what's actually worth communicating.
In terms of the aesthetics of rock climbing I think this short essay gives a pretty good account: https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/170-the-aesthetics-of-rock-climbing
-
Wel it can’t be Fiend or myself as we are both banned from UKC. :dance1:
I can still vote on logbook climbs apparently.... :whistle:
I met a bloke in Cochamo who would have loved this thread, he was super psyched about his strict 'leave no trace' ascents - ie no cleaning, no chalk, and no telling anyone else what he'd climbed. He had the most enormous beard I've ever seen, possibly for the same reasons - I didn't ask...
:lol: brilliant.
-
In terms of the aesthetics of rock climbing I think this short essay gives a pretty good account: https://www.philosophersmag.com/essays/170-the-aesthetics-of-rock-climbing
Liked that, thanks Andy
-
Throwing stars around devalues the system, especially when their absence does not mean the route or problem isn’t worthwhile.
The problem is people enjoy very different things in climbing and therefore starring stuff is even more of a stab in the dark than grading. Personally I think people tend to give lots of stars to things when they have an enjoyable experience on it, and that just doesn't correlate very well with whether someone else will have a good time on it.
One of the best climbing experiences I've ever had started off with 6m of soloing up a wet, moss encrusted slab where if you fell off you'd probably tool yourself in on a ledge before falling in the sea. For me the whole experience was transcendental, definitive 5 star stuff. On the other hand there's plenty of people who'd sooner have a bath in their own shit. How many stars do you give that?
People want to get on three star lines and have a good time, but it's not going to happen and I think getting too attached to stars is the issue, not the proliferation of stars.
I find this hard to believe... Mainly because moss doesn't grow by the sea. ;D
-
One of the best climbing experiences I've ever had started off with 6m of soloing up a wet, moss encrusted slab where if you fell off you'd probably tool yourself in on a ledge before falling in the sea.
You need to move up here, there's that kind of shit for days.
-
I'm only semi-following this so forgive me if this is off -topic or covered elsewhere. There is an issue with over-recording and over-starring. It's natural that when people get stuck into a bit of development they let their excitement get the better of them. I've been there (and admit I still am occasionally a bit cheeky with stars and documenting things which are fairly low-value or crap) but I was fortunate that I had people like Paul Clarke to show the way.
Clearly some people on here feel they've been given a hard time over stuff they've developed* - there's a balance to strike between trying to steer people in the right direction of better development and not stifling the psyche.
With that in mind, to those who say that the quality of movement is the principle arbiter of quality, I say that you are dead wrong. That's indoor climbing and if it applied outdoors then we'd be filling in holds that were superfluous and chipping stuff to give better sequences and thus better problems. We don't do that because when you go rock climbing you accept the rock as it is and you follow where it leads - that is one of rock climbing's absolute fundamentals. Quality of movement is important but rock climbing is so much richer than that. That's why eliminates and link-ups, though they might be fun (and some venues are really well suited to them), should always be secondary to logical problems that seek to climb a line in the most natural way. Avoid contrivance where you can and, if the result isn't as good as you wanted, just accept it and continue the search.
*Carlos, if people were trashing your problems on UKC then maybe they were trying to hint that the problems weren't worth 2 or 3 stars or whatever you'd given them :shrug:. Some of your stuff looks decent but there are some things which I'd say look over-starred. Honestly, The Mantelope looks pretty log. What's the rules there? Use the ledge but only the bit that is overhung by the nose, don't step on the bit of the ledge that isn't overhung (because then it would be a 4+) and keep your leg on the left of the nose until you're almost over the top but bring it round to the right at the last minute anyway? It just seems really really contrived. Sorry.
-
What's objective quality?
That's why I put it in scare quotes. Of course it's not objective, but my point is that you have enough imagination to identify that the experience you have had on a climb does not define the quality rating that a theoretical consensus would establish. Obviously it's a bit loose and blurry for all sorts of reasons, but most of the time it works reasonably well. We could probably all agree that Airwolf is 'better' than Applied Stress.
-
I'm only semi-following this so forgive me if this is off -topic or covered elsewhere. There is an issue with over-recording and over-starring. It's natural that when people get stuck into a bit of development they let their excitement get the better of them. I've been there (and admit I still am occasionally a bit cheeky with stars and documenting things which are fairly low-value or crap) but I was fortunate that I had people like Paul Clarke to show the way.
Clearly some people on here feel they've been given a hard time over stuff they've developed* - there's a balance to strike between trying to steer people in the right direction of better development and not stifling the psyche.
With that in mind, to those who say that the quality of movement is the principle arbiter of quality, I say that you are dead wrong. That's indoor climbing and if it applied outdoors then we'd be filling in holds that were superfluous and chipping stuff to give better sequences and thus better problems. We don't do that because when you go rock climbing you accept the rock as it is and you follow where it leads - that is one of rock climbing's absolute fundamentals. Quality of movement is important but rock climbing is so much richer than that. That's why eliminates and link-ups, though they might be fun (and some venues are really well suited to them), should always be secondary to logical problems that seek to climb a line in the most natural way. Avoid contrivance where you can and, if the result isn't as good as you wanted, just accept it and continue the search.
*Carlos, if people were trashing your problems on UKC then maybe they were trying to hint that the problems weren't worth 2 or 3 stars or whatever you'd given them :shrug:. Some of your stuff looks decent but there are some things which I'd say look over-starred. Honestly, The Mantelope looks pretty log. What's the rules there? Use the ledge but only the bit that is overhung by the nose, don't step on the bit of the ledge that isn't overhung (because then it would be a 4+) and keep your leg on the left of the nose until you're almost over the top but bring it round to the right at the last minute anyway? It just seems really really contrived. Sorry.
Lol I will throw hands up and admit Mantelope is 0 stars, that was definitely me letting the excitement get the better of me. To be fair I have emailed Danny and asked him to regrade and remove stars from it and a number of lines. Doesn’t stop the fact that some cunt was mass bin voting all my lines. The line to the left is very good and didn’t deserve the 80 odd bin votes it got from whichever loser had time sit around and refresh their browser.
Also the line is fairly obvious, you stick to the prow. Use the foot rail all you like but if you stick to the prow it won’t help going out right anyways, it’ll be detrimental if anything. Again there’s many lines where you stick to one part of a piece of rock and an easier line is right next to it, this is nothing new. It’s like when people gave me shit for putting up the slab at burbage south next to an arête even though Ron has about 29 Rons Slabs that do exactly that, climb an eliminate slabs right next to an arête.
There’s many lines on grit, some “classics” E.g. The Rib at Burbage South which have totally arbitrary rules such as don’t use the huge foot ledge you can reach from the start holds. So again, either apply the same rules across everything or continue to pick and choose what you want to shit on :shrug:
-
Doesn’t stop the fact that some cunt was mass bin voting all my lines. The line to the left is very good and didn’t deserve the 80 odd bin votes it got from whichever loser had time sit around and refresh their browser.
You sure this isn't just a mate winding you up?
-
Doesn’t stop the fact that some cunt was mass bin voting all my lines. The line to the left is very good and didn’t deserve the 80 odd bin votes it got from whichever loser had time sit around and refresh their browser.
You sure this isn't just a mate winding you up?
If it is, mission accomplished :lol:
-
Ron has about 29 Rons Slabs that do exactly that, climb an eliminate slabs right next to an arête.
But Ron didn't give them three stars; he didn't even name them (the convention is that you don't name problems after yourself. They get named after you if you don't bother to give them a name).
-
Ron has about 29 Rons Slabs that do exactly that, climb an eliminate slabs right next to an arête.
But Ron didn't give them three stars; he didn't even name them (the convention is that you don't name problems after yourself. They get named after you if you don't bother to give them a name).
We’re not talking about naming conventions haha. We’re talking about the style of climbing. But yes, lots of peak grit classic have arbitrary rules, do they not? I would sit here and list many but I can’t be arsed. It just annoys me that there’s no real consensus across the board as to what is considered an arbitrary rule and what isn’t and like Wellsey said earlier in the thread it does feel like the negativity is often aimed at the individual more so than the actual climbs.
I will admit that I’m still a total punter when it comes to development, and I’m sure with time I will also become jaded about choss getting 1/2/3 stars on UKC, but it is a learning curve so please give me time to get acquainted with it, that’s all I’m asking. We were all new at this at some point. I’m still very psyched with finding new stuff and opening new lines for people to try.
-
A lot of the 'classics' you are objecting to are definitely a bit shit. The Rib falls into this category for me, as does Green Traverse. They are relics from the early era of bouldering development in the Peak when the sport was in its infancy. They are considered 'classics' because of their historical interest, but over time people will probably acknowledge that they are, in reality, not that good. There are loads of problems like this; would be a good thread. Blockbuster at Caley is another one; absolutely shite yet weirdly considered classic in previous guidebooks.
However, I don't think that saying 'look at this perceived classic from 30/35 years ago, (when bouldering was completely different to how it is now, when there was no guidebooks to bouldering, no internet, and the entire pursuit was still broadly considered as 'training,'); that problem is a bit eliminate and is considered classic, why is my eliminate problem any different, this is unfair treatment,' isn't really saying what you think it is. The Rib was probably climbed by someone pissing around after work, was repeated by the Sheffield mafia who then wrote a guide and gave it three stars cause their mate did it (no idea if this is actually true for John Welford but I bet it is for loads of old 'classics.'). It might also have genuinely been one of the best around when bouldering in the UK was so undeveloped back then. The rules of the game have completely changed and for the better; it's nice to think that going forward, we should apply a more rigorous assessment of quality to boulder problems than we did previously.
Yes, your problems are held to a different standard than problems done yonks ago, because they are being climbed in a totally different environment.
-
I’m still very psyched with finding new stuff and opening new lines for people to try.
You are a little bit up against it trying to develop new lines at the some of most popular bouldering crags in...the world?? I don't doubt there are still gems to be found on Peak grit, but it's not like no one's been for a look.
Even in North Wales these days you have to walk up a mountain and down the other side and get a heli-drop of patio materials to climb something that hasn't already been traversed and reversed and linked to death.
-
Not much to add other than the song currently playing in my head is Spiritualized's '200 bars' with the new lyrics '400 bin votes'.
I've been abused,
and I've been used
I'm gonna lose my thoughts in
400 bin votes
You know I've tried,
but I know I'm tired
I'm losing track of time in
400 bin votes
etc...
-
I’m still very psyched with finding new stuff and opening new lines for people to try.
You are a little bit up against it trying to develop new lines at the some of most popular bouldering crags in...the world?? I don't doubt there are still gems to be found on Peak grit, but it's not like no one's been for a look.
Even in North Wales these days you have to walk up a mountain and down the other side and get a heli-drop of patio materials to climb something that hasn't already been traversed and reversed and linked to death.
I mean I essentially developed a whole circuit at yarncliffe, some of which has fairly tall and proud lines and there’s still plenty more tall and scary lines to go at there. There’s also plenty of underdeveloped areas and quarries if you bother looking, no helicopter required.
Just for the record I very rarely go looking for new lines at popular crags.
-
Even in North Wales these days you have to walk up a mountain and down the other side and get a heli-drop of patio materials to climb something that hasn't already been traversed and reversed and linked to death.
There's been a lot of activity in Ogwen recently, would be surprised if you thought this stuff fell into the "up and down a mountain to get there" category. There's obviously some areas that are getting pretty exhausted but there's still a lot of stuff being found!
-
Even in North Wales these days you have to walk up a mountain and down the other side and get a heli-drop of patio materials to climb something that hasn't already been traversed and reversed and linked to death.
There's been a lot of activity in Ogwen recently, would be surprised if you thought this stuff fell into the "up and down a mountain to get there" category. There's obviously some areas that are getting pretty exhausted but there's still a lot of stuff being found!
I'm actually pretty familiar with goings on in North Wales*, I was exaggerating a tiny bit for effect. But the distances some of the more intrepid developers have been walking in recent years is pretty impressive.
* in fact early last year I developed a boulder that I can see from my front doorstep in Llanberis.
-
On the subject of which (walk-ins), and based on the warm and welcoming vibes in this thread, I'm going to give one of my new (unpublicised) Rhinogs problems 3 stars :icon_321:
World class situation and view, perfect rock, good line, good moves including a nice long reach to and rockover from a hidden crimp, a bit of techiness, high easy glory finish onto the most ergonomic jug lip I've felt, etc. Also :icon_321:
In accordance with my mate's OG question, I shouldn't claim it of course, but Tezza T was there so no chance of that.
-
I mean I essentially developed a whole circuit at yarncliffe, some of which has fairly tall and proud lines and there’s still plenty more tall and scary lines to go at there
'Fairly' being the operative word here. What you perhaps need to bear in mind is that almost every vaguely ambitious climber who has ever moved to Sheffield has previously walked round Yarncliffe looking for new rock and thought 'nah'. Even for a veteran developer like Bonjoy the dross outnumbers the good by a significant factor. However most people do appreciate that the quality isn't always obvious until after the thing is cleaned and climbed, so it is rarely possible to just develop the good stuff.
On the old eliminate thing, I think it's worth noting that these were typically developed in sort of scene (see One Summer for Minus Ten etc) which meant random problems sometimes gained significance as benchmarks that a lone development would never have accrued.
-
I was exaggerating a tiny bit for effect. But the distances some of the more intrepid developers have been walking in recent years is pretty impressive.
Especially if they are carrying the current guide up with them.
-
I'm actually pretty familiar with goings on in North Wales*, I was exaggerating a tiny bit for effect. But the distances some of the more intrepid developers have been walking in recent years is pretty impressive.
* in fact early last year I developed a boulder that I can see from my front doorstep in Llanberis.
I did think you were a local, would have been surprised if you genuinely believed it was so tapped out!
Nice find on such a nearby boulder - have you by any chance thought of documenting it? ;)
-
I mean I essentially developed a whole circuit at yarncliffe, some of which has fairly tall and proud lines and there’s still plenty more tall and scary lines to go at there
'Fairly' being the operative word here. What you perhaps need to bear in mind is that almost every vaguely ambitious climber who has ever moved to Sheffield has previously walked round Yarncliffe looking for new rock and thought 'nah'. Even for a veteran developer like Bonjoy the dross outnumbers the good by a significant factor. However most people do appreciate that the quality isn't always obvious until after the thing is cleaned and climbed, so it is rarely possible to just develop the good stuff.
On the old eliminate thing, I think it's worth noting that these were typically developed in sort of scene (see One Summer for Minus Ten etc) which meant random problems sometimes gained significance as benchmarks that a lone development would never have accrued.
Sounds like those ambitious climbers didn’t look very hard then. You can go check the logbooks for the stuff I’ve put up at Yarncliffe. Go look at Arête About it, Hobnob, Carlos Torque, Hip Breaker, A Case of Mosstaken Identity, all great line with good feedback from the people who’ve climbed it.
A lot of those lines needed a lot of cleaning and in the end they were totally worth it in my opinion - and the reason why things werent cleaned in the woods isn’t because they were deemed dross it’s because for many years it was considered sensitive access, I’ve had people question me thinking climbing wasn’t allowed there, which I cleared with Simon.
-
Nice find on such a nearby boulder - have you by any chance thought of documenting it? ;)
Documented the shit out of it, even gave one of the problems 3* :lol:
No eliminates established there yet, though the one person I know that's repeated the problems thought one of the finishes was too escapable for how scary it felt so that one lost a star.
Potential hard proj up there for the very strong :fishing:
-
On the subject of which (walk-ins), and based on the warm and welcoming vibes in this thread, I'm going to give one of my new (unpublicised) Rhinogs problems 3 stars :icon_321:
World class situation and view, perfect rock, good line, good moves including a nice long reach to and rockover from a hidden crimp, a bit of techiness, high easy glory finish onto the most ergonomic jug lip I've felt, etc. Also :icon_321:
In accordance with my mate's OG question, I shouldn't claim it of course, but Tezza T was there so no chance of that.
If it's on those stepped terraces overlooking tremadog/porthmadog at the far north end of the Rhinogs then I did them in around 2009 while housesitting for a friend in Llanbedr. Didn't think it worth documenting but glad you had a good time on them. 8)
-
I mean I essentially developed a whole circuit at yarncliffe, some of which has fairly tall and proud lines and there’s still plenty more tall and scary lines to go at there
'Fairly' being the operative word here. What you perhaps need to bear in mind is that almost every vaguely ambitious climber who has ever moved to Sheffield has previously walked round Yarncliffe looking for new rock and thought 'nah'. Even for a veteran developer like Bonjoy the dross outnumbers the good by a significant factor. However most people do appreciate that the quality isn't always obvious until after the thing is cleaned and climbed, so it is rarely possible to just develop the good stuff.
Sounds like those ambitious climbers didn’t look very hard then. You can go check the logbooks for the stuff I’ve put up at Yarncliffe. Go look at Arête About it, Hobnob, Carlos Torque, Hip Breaker, A Case of Mosstaken Identity, all great line with good feedback from the people who’ve climbed it.
A lot of those lines needed a lot of cleaning and in the end they were totally worth it in my opinion - and the reason why things werent cleaned in the woods isn’t because they were deemed dross it’s because for many years it was considered sensitive access, I’ve had people question me thinking climbing wasn’t allowed there, which I cleared with Simon.
Just to back Carlos up here, I find that kind of comment a bit off JB. It comes across as sneeringly superior and is illustrative of a lot of the reaction to new problems at lower grades being established by new climbers in the Peak. You certainly don't see the same reaction to the likes of Jim Pope, Sam Lawson or Bonjoy climbing harder new things, and I think it's quite unfair. Especially when there have been some very good problems done.
That's not to say there isn't plenty of dross being documented too, including by Carlos. To balance things out, I think the problems Twisting in the Rain and Singing in the Rain are amusing examples, both essentially climbing the same line but eliminating different things, with Singing being done and written up later as an eliminate despite it actually ending up as an easier sequence and using holds (and kneebars) which aren't used on Twisting!
Maybe it's that with all the dross it's harder to see the wood for the trees. The point I'm making though is it seems a shame to piss on the chips of new climbers who are keen and excited about getting out and doing things, even if some end up being a bit log.
-
I mean I essentially developed a whole circuit at yarncliffe, some of which has fairly tall and proud lines and there’s still plenty more tall and scary lines to go at there
'Fairly' being the operative word here. What you perhaps need to bear in mind is that almost every vaguely ambitious climber who has ever moved to Sheffield has previously walked round Yarncliffe looking for new rock and thought 'nah'. Even for a veteran developer like Bonjoy the dross outnumbers the good by a significant factor. However most people do appreciate that the quality isn't always obvious until after the thing is cleaned and climbed, so it is rarely possible to just develop the good stuff.
Sounds like those ambitious climbers didn’t look very hard then. You can go check the logbooks for the stuff I’ve put up at Yarncliffe. Go look at Arête About it, Hobnob, Carlos Torque, Hip Breaker, A Case of Mosstaken Identity, all great line with good feedback from the people who’ve climbed it.
A lot of those lines needed a lot of cleaning and in the end they were totally worth it in my opinion - and the reason why things werent cleaned in the woods isn’t because they were deemed dross it’s because for many years it was considered sensitive access, I’ve had people question me thinking climbing wasn’t allowed there, which I cleared with Simon.
Just to back Carlos up here, I find that kind of comment a bit off JB. It comes across as sneeringly superior and is illustrative of a lot of the reaction to new problems at lower grades being established by new climbers in the Peak. You certainly don't see the same reaction to the likes of Jim Pope, Sam Lawson or Bonjoy climbing harder new things, and I think it's quite unfair. Especially when there have been some very good problems done.
That's not to say there isn't plenty of dross being documented too, including by Carlos. To balance things out, I think the problems Twisting in the Rain and Singing in the Rain are amusing examples, both essentially climbing the same line but eliminating different things, with Singing being done and written up later as an eliminate despite it actually ending up as an easier sequence and using holds (and kneebars) which aren't used on Twisting!
Maybe it's that with all the dross it's harder to see the wood for the trees. The point I'm making though is it seems a shame to piss on the chips of new climbers who are keen and excited about getting out and doing things, even if some end up being a bit log.
Aha thanks for the backup Nick, though I will point out that Singing in the Wind isn't actually an easier sequence, I sandbagged that one quite a lot on purpose. But we can basically look at Jon's new line Under the Weather which is also an eliminate but was put up as a seperate harder line. I would say Windy is more akin to a lime training venue than an Anston for example so don't see to many issues with having eliminates logged. None are starred either :beer2:
-
Sounds like those ambitious climbers didn’t look very hard then. You can go check the logbooks for the stuff I’ve put up at Yarncliffe. Go look at Arête About it, Hobnob, Carlos Torque, Hip Breaker, A Case of Mosstaken Identity, all great line with good feedback from the people who’ve climbed it.
Just had a flick through UKC, do people genuinely think Hip Breaker is worthy of 3 stars? Was this one of the climbs being bin voted?
-
It climbs very very nicely but obviously isn't super aesthetic. I'd say it's worthy of two stars.
-
Sounds like those ambitious climbers didn’t look very hard then. You can go check the logbooks for the stuff I’ve put up at Yarncliffe. Go look at Arête About it, Hobnob, Carlos Torque, Hip Breaker, A Case of Mosstaken Identity, all great line with good feedback from the people who’ve climbed it.
Just had a flick through UKC, do people genuinely think Hip Breaker is worthy of 3 stars? Was this one of the climbs being bin voted?
I’d say it’s more like 1 star but I was definitely trigger happy with stars when I first started putting stuff up as I wasn’t as aware about stars being so important. It’s a good line regardless!
-
Just had a flick through UKC, do people genuinely think Hip Breaker is worthy of 3 stars?
It looks like it's only had 2 votes, assume Carlos and CP?
-
What’s the rational for awarding stars ? Is just how you feel about the problem or is it better to have a points system, eg climbs well but has shit rock and looks shit might get one star if it’s really really good climbing.
If it’s awesome climbing on awesome rock and looks awesome eg crescent arête then it’d be 3 stars
It’d just seem to make more sense to me if there was some decent rational behind how we were attributing stars etc.
-
I think(?) I remember in a podcast monkey boy saying he looks for quality movement, an aesthetic line and history in problems. For me that makes up 3 potential stars, but I'm sure others have very different ways of looking at it.
Re history something I guess can gain history somewhat quickly in the right circumstances (e.g. Ilse sitter was a historical project for some time etc)
But idk that's just how I've thought about things for a little while since hearing the podcast. Not suggesting that's the correct or only way to attribute stars (which will always be super subjective)
-
Indeed, history doesn't necessarily mean it's an old problem. History can be "only 2 previous ascents, by prolific climber X and prolific climber Y, both whom said it was hard but excellent climbing" .
-
From a couple of guidebooks pulled off my shelf.
The SMC (which is admittedly somewhat fuddy-duddy and not remotely an authority on bouldering) defines its star ratings thus:
No star routes may be good although nothing special, or eliminate in line, or information may be lacking. Only a few are worthless or unpleasant.
* Good climbing, but the route may lack line, situation or balance.
** A good route but lacking one or more of the features that make it a climb of quality.
*** An outstanding route of the highest quality, combining superb climbing with line, character and situation.
**** The best climbs of their class in Scotland.
The CC (also admittedly not known for being on point) offers:
Some climbers wrongly assume that unstarred routes are not worthwhile. The vast majority of unstarred climbs in this book are worth doing. Poor climbs are specifically described as such.
* A one star route is of significant quality for the crag.
** A two star route is of significant quality for the guidebook area.
*** A three star route bears comparison with the best routes in other areas.
-
Petejh, aye whatever. It might be the similar area but there's a lot of rock up there and even if it does vaguely coincide then someone has to document it (oooops, there's the "document everything" again) for the new book.
Going back to the ever-entertaining Carliios show, my understanding of the Yarncliffe stuff was that there could well have been great stuff discovered because it's been previously banned for ages (and thus would also need a fair bit of unearthing) which seems pretty simple.
For quality I refer the honourable gentlemen back to my previous answer which had a bit of science in it. There's various aspects which should be pretty obvious.
-
From a couple of guidebooks pulled off my shelf.
Thanks, save me typing, I just had a look in SMC HOS.
Rockfax Lakes Bouldering is a bit more succint;
* - a good problem
** - a very good problem
*** - an excellent problem
-
From a couple of guidebooks pulled off my shelf.
Thanks, save me typing, I just had a look in SMC HOS.
Rockfax Lakes Bouldering is a bit more succint;
* - a good problem
** - a very good problem
*** - an excellent problem
Right succint yet incredibly vague, because we refer back to what if something is an excellent problem but looks like choss?
-
Nice discussion.
It got me thinking that if you took, say, the Plantation as an example, what would the stars be.
In my opinion,
***
Deliverance and the arete to its left, climbed on the right.
**
Green Travese
Steep Traverse
The Hourglass
*
Glass Hour
Deliverance arete on its left
And everything else are just really nice no-star problems that i love
-
Stars imo are best used as a relative rating in a national context, as that’s the playing field most climbers play on over a lifetime of climbing. Very few people restrict themselves to one area or crag so it makes little sense to me to give something 3-stars relative to a crag or guidebook area.
The CC chimes with what we put in NWL regarding stars:
0: worthwhile unless stated otherwise. Or no info.
1: standout quality for the crag
2: standout quality for the guidebook area.
3: standout quality nationally. Or anything by Robins as he gives everything he does 3 stars 🤩
Of course ‘quality’ is and always will be subjective but there are commonalities most people can agree on.
-
* A one star route is of significant quality for the crag.
** A two star route is of significant quality for the guidebook area.
*** A three star route bears comparison with the best routes in other areas.
This has always been my understanding for boulders, i.e. 3 stars should be up there with the best in the country and 2 stars should still be an amazing problem.
-
* A one star route is of significant quality for the crag.
** A two star route is of significant quality for the guidebook area.
*** A three star route bears comparison with the best routes in other areas.
This has always been my understanding for boulders, i.e. 3 stars should be up there with the best in the country and 2 stars should still be an amazing problem.
Yes likewise. Although what's amazed me about this discussion is that people actually pay any attention whatsoever to stars on UKC....they've always been wrong!
It's amazing how many new 'problems' have been added lately. Obsessive logging (which is me included!) seems to make people reluctant to walk away empty handed. I try not to care but the amount of inflated starring is annoying.
Here's an example that annoyed me https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/caley_crags-540/one_squirrels-641886?lgn=113303 (https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/caley_crags-540/one_squirrels-641886?lgn=113303)
This starts halfway along an established problem. Surely either get good or GTFO? The old Caley guide describes the problems as those you can do and those you can't :P
A lot of this discussion also seems to have come down to "people being wrong on the internet", which clearly we should all get over.
However, that's really hard when they are clearly SO. FUCKING. WRONG!!! I mean my god, so many things are wrong with that; the grammar fail on the name (One Squirrel, surely!!), the obvious desperation of people being completely unable to end a session without ticking something/anything, the massive over grade (I remember it being very steady from there), the fact someone's given it 2 stars, the fact other people have said 3 stars.....aaaaarrrrgghhh.
-
One Squirrels reminds me of the band in the movie Airheads called The Lone Rangers.
-
I think a fair bit of it might come down to your climbing background. I'm a trad climber of 20+ years, only getting into bouldering 'late' in my climbing career (had kids, moved to Sheffield, got into bouldering for convenience sake, loved it, now only bouldered for about 4 years).
Having climbed all over the UK, Europe, further afield etc, I will look for 3* routes in new areas to get the best out of a visit. I expect them to climb an aesthetic line, or striking feature, to have enjoyable, challenging movement and ideally to have some historical (local or national) significance. Well, some rich combination of all those things preferably.
I've come to bouldering with that mentality, so if climbing a 3* boulder I expected it (as described up-thread) to be a well-regarded, high-quality line, with engaging climbing up a good feature, with some history or kudos attached. My observation as a relative new-comer, is that it's just not the case and not quite comparable to the trad 'starring ethic' (if you will). The different aspects carry different weightings in bouldering. I think that's largely a function of the relative youth of the sport. You can climb 3* trad routes that are nearly 100 years old and that's just not the case with boulders.
Anyway, it might be the case that relative new-comers to climbing generally, and bouldering specifically, (moving from indoor bouldering walls to outside etc, rather than the hillwalking-scrambling-tradclimbing-bouldering route that some of us old gits might have had), however passionate, don't quite have the same understanding of the star system, or at least interpret it quite differently.
FWIW, if I'm looking on UKC at a new area I will look for 2-3* problems to start on. If I click on them and see they've had < 3 ascents, were climbed recently and still are given stars I tend automatically to dismiss them as the product of enthusiasm/hubris of the FA. Perhaps unfair, but I'm strongly motivated by 'ticking classics' and am very time poor, so try to be as selective as possible.
-
I will point out that Singing in the Wind isn't actually an easier sequence, I sandbagged that one quite a lot on purpose.
Why? You seem to be get pretty upset that people have a different opinion of your problems to you but you admit to mis-grading and mis-attributing stars.
Regarding what constitutes a classic, there are no rules other than ‘it is not dictated by the first ascensionist’.
-
what if something is an excellent problem but looks like choss?
Contradiction in terms.
-
what if something is an excellent problem but looks like choss?
Contradiction in terms.
Agree. I’m sure a climb on choss could have great movement (until the holds fell off) but if the rock quality is poor it can’t be an ‘excellent problem’. 1 star max for me.
This of course is not true for trad, where apparently you can have routes entirely made of cheese that are still 3 star 😄
-
e.g. Wrecker's Slab. I love Crusher Bartlett's description of it; "... this climb is composed of thousands of finger to fist size teeth, slotted together. In the best traditions of British dentistry, these teeth are not very firmly attached, and any given one can be extracted and thrown a way"
-
I will point out that Singing in the Wind isn't actually an easier sequence, I sandbagged that one quite a lot on purpose.
Why? You seem to be get pretty upset that people have a different opinion of your problems to you but you admit to mis-grading and mis-attributing stars.
Regarding what constitutes a classic, there are no rules other than ‘it is not dictated by the first ascensionist’.
I tend to lower grades of all my climbs by 1-2 grades as usually it’s off by that much, to me it feels like sandbagging but usually that’s where the grading ends up anyways and since when is having a discussion “getting upset” - I got annoyed with people using the voting bug to bin vote my shit 400 times haha
-
I have not and will not be voting on any of these problems that I haven't climbed, but I'm finding the already amusing excess of the 400 Bin Votes is being amplified by the number of times it keeps being mentioned :lol:
-
When I started bouldering which would be around 1973, problems were all about the difficulty and considered rights of passage. No body considered quality, it was more about people would deem you worth talking to if you had done certain problems. :dance1:
This was mainly an Almscliff experience but other Yorkshire crags counted abit.
-
What’s the rational for awarding stars ?
3* = "tried really hard on this and happy to get up it"?
-
I have not and will not be voting on any of these problems that I haven't climbed, but I'm finding the already amusing excess of the 400 Bin Votes is being amplified by the number of times it keeps being mentioned :lol:
One of the many rules of the internet: if you mention something you don't like, people will go out of their way to do it more for a bit of a laugh.
-
The Streisand effect.
-
I have not and will not be voting on any of these problems that I haven't climbed, but I'm finding the already amusing excess of the 400 Bin Votes is being amplified by the number of times it keeps being mentioned :lol:
One of the many rules of the internet: if you mention something you don't like, people will go out of their way to do it more for a bit of a laugh.
Given how often it's been mentioned I'm amazed we're not passed the 1k milestone.
-
Right succint yet incredibly vague
What, are you saying quality and grade are vague and subjective? Get out.
-
When I started bouldering which would be around 1973, problems were all about the difficulty and considered rights of passage. No body considered quality, it was more about people would deem you worth talking to if you had done certain problems. :dance1:
This was mainly an Almscliff experience but other Yorkshire crags counted abit.
I'm pretty sure Tim Palmer only really started talking to me after he saw me do Dialectics on DWR.
-
Still one of my favourite climbing videos
https://vimeo.com/151546911
-
Just watching that and seeing that bloke in the flo jacket reminded me of my first climbing experience in 1964 aged 9 doing that chimney on my special birthday outing to Almscliff.
If I only had known how it ended I would asked to go to Bridlington.
-
But I would vote 400 bins
And I would vote 400 more
-
When I started bouldering which would be around 1973, problems were all about the difficulty and considered rights of passage. No body considered quality, it was more about people would deem you worth talking to if you had done certain problems. :dance1:
This was mainly an Almscliff experience but other Yorkshire crags counted abit.
I'm pretty sure Tim Palmer only really started talking to me after he saw me do Dialectics on DWR.
I chose the easier option of bonding over conversations about tumours and pathology and the quality of the pork pies at the Spa in the garage shop in Threshfield, on the way to Kilnsey.
-
Best bit about climbing in upper Wharfedale
-
Browsing Latest pics on UKC early this morning{ i have tiny children :coffee: } i noticed a slab someone posted up from the wilds of Sanna on the far flung peninsula of Ardnamurchan, i dug a little deeper to find a climber had claimed a line as a trad route i climbed as a highball over 10 yrs ago on the same piece of rock.
i was initially disappointed not because someone had stolen my F.A but that i had mistakenly thought everyone knew the rules{ as stated in the Boulder Scotland guidebook } that the "Ring Cycle" of the caldera was a NON documented area where you took away the experience of the place above the need to top,tick,grade and move on.
I quickly realised i may have been guilty of this too if i had missed an important implied Rule or stated regulation, so no hard feeling to the folks who inadvertently stumble into this trap.
I do feel that there is definitely a place for documenting but i also love the idea of wild undocumented land where we can escape to climb, sit, reflect, swim in the ocean without the pressure of the send. Unfortunately i can find no easy suggestion to enforce that ideal.
As for grading...
When asked by friends who come North to visit for a climbing tour i tailor that experience for that person or group, as in - "Oh Nate loves crimps so he will love that line" or " I love that 3* thug fest but Susi would hate it for that very reason" or " The young team would love Queen's wave as its a board climbers wet dream and they are all about that" etc.
My idea of a 3 star problem and the next climbers is wildly different for a myriad of reasons, only consensus over time can help, but not always.
-
the rules{ as stated in the Boulder Scotland guidebook } that the "Ring Cycle" of the caldera was a NON documented area where you took away the experience of the place above the need to top,tick,grade and move on
While I'm sympathetic to the sentiment, and it's nice to think of some fringe places being left undocumented, I doubt the provenance and authority of such a 'rule', which I suspect is nothing more than the guidebook author's (or a very small cadre of people's) whim. I mean, you could claim anywhere should be a non-documented area, it's funny how being printed in one man's book gives an opinion more sway than if it was, say, a post on this forum.
To be fair, in my copy of Bouldering in Scotland it isn't made to sound like a 'rule', it rather gives the impression that no one has bothered to write it up (which is understandable given how dispersed the bouldering there must be).
Like you say, it's hard to imagine how to enforce such an ideal (if enforcing is what you really want to do?), because it only takes one person to break from it and the genie's out.
-
You would need to carefully and widely document why to not document it.
OT, but I still need to get there for some climbing, only ever sea kayaked around there and it rained, so no climbing.
-
the rules{ as stated in the Boulder Scotland guidebook } that the "Ring Cycle" of the caldera was a NON documented area where you took away the experience of the place above the need to top,tick,grade and move on
While I'm sympathetic to the sentiment, and it's nice to think of some fringe places being left undocumented, I doubt the provenance and authority of such a 'rule', which I suspect is nothing more than the guidebook author's (or a very small cadre of people's) whim. I mean, you could claim anywhere should be a non-documented area, it's funny how being printed in one man's book gives an opinion more sway than if it was, say, a post on this forum.
To be fair, in my copy of Bouldering in Scotland it isn't made to sound like a 'rule', it rather gives the impression that no one has bothered to write it up (which is understandable given how dispersed the bouldering there must be).
Like you say, it's hard to imagine how to enforce such an ideal (if enforcing is what you really want to do?), because it only takes one person to break from it and the genie's out.
Maybe a lot more thought goes into what is put down in a book than on a forum?
Fair point, its more implied but i think i took it as Law :shrug:
-
You would need to carefully and widely document why to not document it.
OT, but I still need to get there for some climbing, only ever sea kayaked around there and it rained, so no climbing.
Yeah, it's a logistical nightmare plus it's a minority view.
Paddled, snorkelled and climbed around this area for years, fabulous on a sunny day and truly wild on a stormy one.
-
Long old haul from here. Was truly wild getting back across Loch Sunart in a storm on the kayaks, especially after a drunken wild camp on Carna.
-
In anticipation of the film that will no doubt follow this thread, I have taken the liberty of mocking up a poster.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52296090212_ddb1aef71e_k.jpg)
-
In anticipation of the film that will no doubt follow this thread, I have taken the liberty of mocking up a poster.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52296090212_ddb1aef71e_k.jpg)
Actually brilliant :lol:
-
I was reminded of this thread seeing 3 new eliminates going up at Manley Knoll:
1. Traverse half of an existing problem but footless
2. Some traverse done facing out
3. Same traverse facing out, then in, then out again - https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/manley_knoll-18277/mans_traverse-667629
Thinking I might add another, as for 3 above but shaking it all about.
-
Surely you need to do it using only your left leg, then only your right?
-
Woah hold on, these could be worthwhile. The spinny one has 2 stars, FFS.
-
I like that the outward facing one gets no stars, the spinning obviously adds a lot of quality :lol:
That's up there with the two-star two-pitch problem at Cromlech roadside, which links sections of two existing problems by walking across a slab (which is so low angled you could stay there indefinitely, or jog on the spot if you needed to keep warm).
-
Most of the salient points have been made, so just a few thoughts really:
- I agree with the early post about there being a natural progression wrt to recording stuff (fractals were mentioned). It offends my sense of order when things seem too far either side of an areas ‘development age’. For this reason I find under recording no better than over recording. The wise new developers surfs the edge of this advancing front rather than questing off too far ahead of the area ‘age’ though.
- I detest the notion of engineered fake FA experiences, as implied by the proposition in the OP. I find the idea patronizing, dishonest, and a sad trivialization of an already trivial game.
- I agree there is a problem with over recording. As others have said though, I think it’s mostly a problem because it causes confusion and hinders clear evaluation of the existing record. I.e. it’s a record keeping problem (mostly).
- I agree that segregating links/eliminates/variants within digital records is a good thing and goes a long way to solving some of the real issues.
- There are lots of factors to consider when deciding whether or not to record a problem/area. Most have been covered. Others: - When developing a new area sometimes a bad line helps to define its good neighbour and therefore is better recorded than not, even though objectively poor. Sometimes micro venues benefit from a few extra probs, which would be considered worthless at a place with a wider selection. This is just a matter of having things to go at after you’ve done the obvious and thereby increasing the venues viability. The new eliminate I did at Windy Knoll (Under the Weather) is a case in point here.
- I dislike no star guidebooks (e.g. the old Northumberland guide). It’s just hard to assess if somewhere is worth a visit in a non longwinded way. Stars simply get replaced with hyperbole within the text, which is far more confusing and prone to inaccuracy.
- I agree that I probably would get less shit for putting up poor new probs than a newbie, but I would point out that I’ve been on UKB for a long time and have got my fair share of flack (usually fairly deserved) for all sorts of stuff, including poor new developments over the years.
-
A wild Bonjoy appears... :ninja:
-
Oh, and regards Ardnamurchan, Ring Cycle. I also read the guide as implying nobody had been arsed to record anything rather than there being any convention that it should stay unrecorded. With the exception of the slab that Jon Read recorded some bits on, I didn't see much that really made sense to record when I was there, mostly due to the length of the walk in and the roughness of the rock. Also there looked to be lots of much more easily accessible rock on the hillside behind the beach, which would be the first logical area to develop. I did find a really nice coastal venue about a mile north though (have recorded on UKC) which made sense to record as it was worth the walk and is ideal as a family/holiday visit as it scores high on the beautiful white sand beach scale.
-
Sometimes micro venues benefit from a few extra probs, which would be considered worthless at a place with a wider selection. This is just a matter of having things to go at after you’ve done the obvious and thereby increasing the venues viability. The new eliminate I did at Windy Knoll (Under the Weather) is a case in point here.
You do this a disservice - it's the best problem there!
-
I agree it's a great sequence but I also know it's the sort of thing that lots of people find really annoying.
-
I agree it's a great sequence but I also know it's the sort of thing that lots of people find really annoying.
I fear for tallies it's not the easiest way either. I took the good RH hold in the roof, matched it, went RH to shield feature and then RH over again to the "hand jam slot". I was a bit confused, because it felt a bit too easy, but the only way to avoid it was to be very strict about eliminating any feet on the right, and then it felt too hard - one of those eliminates where I didn't know the rules (couldn't find them anywhere) and could only find eliminates that felt a bit too easy or a bit too hard for what it was billed as! Saw a vid of your sequence and it looks like in some ways I was being too elim - looked like you were using feet out in the crack out right which I'd assumed was out. It might make more sense for shorter people as they probably couldn't do my go again method
-
I think at a micro venue like Windy it totally makes sense to document all the linkups and eliminates since it’s essentially a small training venue. There’s only so much you can squeeze out of it but the lines remain fairly obvious and worthwhile if you know what you’re looking at anyways, though it would probably help if we put up a topo and some more descriptions as to what’s in and what’s out on each eliminate like Under the Weather and Singing in the Wind (those are the only two eliminates as far as I’m aware?)
-
I tried that method and it's impossible for me, and I'm not short.
Although I still did it differently to Bonjoy with a left heel hook in the roof to bring the left hand out. Exact same holds at least. It's one of those with lots of options (despite the slight eliminate nature of it).
I've done a little topo, will put it on UKC.
-
I agree it's a great sequence but I also know it's the sort of thing that lots of people find really annoying.
I fear for tallies it's not the easiest way either. I took the good RH hold in the roof, matched it, went RH to shield feature and then RH over again to the "hand jam slot". I was a bit confused, because it felt a bit too easy, but the only way to avoid it was to be very strict about eliminating any feet on the right, and then it felt too hard - one of those eliminates where I didn't know the rules (couldn't find them anywhere) and could only find eliminates that felt a bit too easy or a bit too hard for what it was billed as! Saw a vid of your sequence and it looks like in some ways I was being too elim - looked like you were using feet out in the crack out right which I'd assumed was out. It might make more sense for shorter people as they probably couldn't do my go again method
Yes, Dave Parry repeated it that way while I was there. I though about adjusting the rules to invalidate it, but it seemed a bit off to apply post ascent rule changes. The rules seemed convoluted enough already without adding extra layers. Figured I’d just let lanksters take the gift instead. Didn’t really expect it would see much/any attention tbh.
-
Makes sense, though I'm not sure how you would adjust the rules without invalidating the other sequence if you put feet even further right? You'd have to do something like define the sequence rather than the holds, and while I don't mind a bit of eliminating a hold now or then when necessary to create a problem, technique elimination is a step too far for me
-
So, to clarify, the crack just right is in for feet?
-
I didn't use it, but I think Bonjoy did
-
I used the lip sloper (for double toe hooks), this is part of the crack in the broadest sense, the other side of the crack is out. Obviously the rule breaks down once you join TiTW at the handjam. As I said, it's already quite far down the rabbit hole, and doesn't need extra levels of convolution :lol:. Happy to send you the vid if it helps.
-
Yes please. I’m actually there now (and thought I’d already done it!)
-
Have sent. I'll also amend the UKC log so it's a bit clearer
-
Cheers, I actually did it another two different ways since my last post, but neither were the same way as you.
I love how this has turned into an eliminate beta thread. I wonder if we are making fiend’s point for him?
-
Quite possibly. I guess that depends on how cheated you feel at being lured out to Windy Knoll be my shoddy eliminate.
-
Cheers, I actually did it another two different ways since my last post, but neither were the same way as you.
I love how this has turned into an eliminate beta thread. I wonder if we are making fiend’s point for him?
But that's two 3-star FAs to your name. Not a bad afternoon's work.
-
Quite possibly. I guess that depends on how cheated you feel at being lured out to Windy Knoll be my shoddy eliminate.
Not cheated at all, I had lots of fun.
The only blight on my session is that I decided not to do the classic Twisting in the Wind cos I didn’t want to do the spooky top out again, then did the top twice more just to ensure the dodgy eliminate tick, thus proving that I’m still a shallow number chaser.
-
Cheers, I actually did it another two different ways since my last post, but neither were the same way as you.
I love how this has turned into an eliminate beta thread. I wonder if we are making fiend’s point for him?
But that's two 3-star FAs to your name. Not a bad afternoon's work.
Oh yeah! I’ll have to think up some appropriately grand names. 😂
-
Quite possibly. I guess that depends on how cheated you feel at being lured out to Windy Knoll be my shoddy eliminate.
Having watched your vid properly and read your new description, I’ve decided that all three of my sequences are legit, as only one of the three uses an extra hold, and that hold is within your rules. 👍😁
Still didn’t do twisting in the wind though.
-
For me I like to know if at least someone has climbed in an area/on a particular boulder. It would piss me off if I went through the effort of documenting something for someone to say that they have already climbed everything. Okay for 1 or 2 problems but a dozen or so on a boulder would be annoying. IMO it's easy to add things to UKC (for example).
Just a note on documenting low grade climbs. I've been 'putting up' a few low grade problems in the Forst of dean as it seems as though things under f5 are not documented anywhere. Maybe that was the ethics back a few decades ago or maybe it just wasn't worth the space in the guide. As for me, it at least gives access to beginners to outdoor bouldering, instead of having to go to an inside wall to pick up the sport.
So, I'm gonna go with yeah...document it (if you are able).
-
I thought Huntsman was banned? Therefore should you be going public with stuff you done there.
It might make any access negotiations tricky.
-
Huntsham isn't the only crag in the FoD
-
Even I as a Northerner know that. However Oogachooga has posted his new low grade problems at Huntsham in the new problems thread.