UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => bouldering => Topic started by: Danny on April 19, 2022, 06:57:16 pm
-
Amazing effort from Will. I can't help but think this problem would be viewed as a classic if it was here in the UK. Have to say if I'd found it first the ledge would be in on everything, and I'd probably be lanking to the top at ~6B. I'm constantly filled with existential dread when drawing the line between rock and the ground on new stuff.
-
I'm constantly filled with existential dread when drawing the line between rock and the ground on new stuff.
Same here on some established stuff. Where does the "plinth" begin and end!?! My main issue is that as I'm tall, I am always second guessing which holds would be within reach for the nominal average climber. Many a time I have got home after a session of frustration, watched a youtube video, and found that my failure was due to trying to do a sit start using smears for hands!
And back on topic... Will Bosi's 8b+ flash is an impressive achievement but if I wanted to summarise the arbitrariness and pure difficulty of bouldering that would be a contender - a sideways arse drag around a corner!
-
I'm constantly filled with existential dread when drawing the line between rock and the ground on new stuff.
Same here on some established stuff. Where does the "plinth" begin and end!?! My main issue is that as I'm tall, I am always second guessing which holds would be within reach for the nominal average climber. Many a time I have got home after a session of frustration, watched a youtube video, and found that my failure was due to trying to do a sit start using smears for hands!
This is a needless pain we’ve inflicted on ourselves out of a desire to pretend bouldering is simpler and purer than it really is. The general disdain for clearly specified start holds is illogical and outdated (nobody has a problem with it indoors). IMO on harder things where it matters, unless the start position is blindingly obvious, or irrelevant, we should just stop messing around and state where problems are graded to start from as a matter of course, especially on sit starts. Certainly, where it has a material influence on the grade, and when online and page space is not an issue. This would also help do away with some standard sit start cheating – pad stacking, almost-sitting starts off higher holds; copycat cheating off video beta; sit starting offline then reaching back in.
-
Is it cheating to throw for the first hand move with the momentum gained from lifting your bum off the ground, or must one always lift up, pause to kill the momentum, and then make the first hand move?
-
Is it cheating to throw for the first hand move with the momentum gained from lifting your bum off the ground, or must one always lift up, pause to kill the momentum, and then make the first hand move?
Whatever the answer, any problem where you have to ask this question is not a good rock climb.
-
Is it cheating to throw for the first hand move with the momentum gained from lifting your bum off the ground, or must one always lift up, pause to kill the momentum, and then make the first hand move?
As the wise man Mike Skinner once said Has It Come To This?
-
Should a short person who can't reach the accepted/defined holds crouch or stack pads to begin?
Is it cheating to throw for the first hand move with the momentum gained from lifting your bum off the ground, or must one always lift up, pause to kill the momentum, and then make the first hand move?
100% vote for not allowing momentum gained from pulling up. Either pause, or the move should be trivial and you're doing it for speed, but if you can't do it without it, that sounds like cheating.
Reckon the boulder could be good Barrows, but maybe just really hard for the person and they're trying to cheat through it!
-
Have you got any examples where this might be relevant/advantageous Liam? I'm struggling to think of any. But my first instinct is that so long as you are starting sat down and pulling on with the start holds then it's fine to utilise arse thrust.
Ed - I think if the start holds are specified it's fine for shorter folk to add pad width in order to start sat down. Certainly preferable to just pulling on the start holds from a non sit position, which can be considerably easier.
-
Enough pads for them to sit comfortably, or just enough so they can reach the holds ;)
-
Obvious example of this for me is Smackhead at Galt yr Ogof. First move seems much easier with an arse thrust. It is still a good problems though (not that I have done it) with a really fun final move...
-
Here's a possible example: http://vimeo.com/459127597
No idea how the FA did it. Cool looking problems.
-
Here's a possible example: http://vimeo.com/459127597
No idea how the FA did it. Cool looking problems.
Oh wow, so many issues! The arse thrusting cheaty start off a folded (and propped up?) pad, the dab. Incredible. How does he sleep at night?
-
Enough pads for them to sit comfortably, or just enough so they can reach the holds ;)
I believe the court of sit start arbitration ruled on this matter in 2006, and concluded that the minimum number required to reach the holds was the maximum allowable in such instances.
Next.
-
case rests m'lud
-
Here's a possible example: http://vimeo.com/459127597
No idea how the FA did it. Cool looking problems.
Oh wow, so many issues! The arse thrusting cheaty start off a folded (and propped up?) pad, the dab. Incredible. How does he sleep at night?
:lol: For a subtle but similar issue see the sit start to Eat It at Fair Head. Stand is 7A. Sit is 2 moves into it, of which the first is the crux. Hardest 7B+ I've ever tried, with a pull on then go approach. I think generating momentum from a bum rocket isn't cricket. However, pulling on and going cleanly, in one motion, is deffo easier than pausing. Is this cricket? Not clear to me.
-
I'm going to bring out a heavily sprung sit start pad. Give it a little bounce and you'll be popped up past the first 6 inches of your sit start proj.
-
Is it cheating to throw for the first hand move with the momentum gained from lifting your bum off the ground, or must one always lift up, pause to kill the momentum, and then make the first hand move?
IMO you should always pause before doing the first move. On some problems, the crux is literally getting your bum off the ground.
-
The only one that springs to mind for me is the one below. Seems I cheated on it! It doesn't top out due to brambles.
https://youtu.be/-Zd04TZMhao
-
Enough pads for them to sit comfortably, or just enough so they can reach the holds ;)
I would say enough to pads sit comfortably however that feels for someone. Enough pads to reach the holds could be an absolute max span for a midget and a comfortable sit start for a lankster.
-
:lol: For a subtle but similar issue see the sit start to Eat It at Fair Head. Stand is 7A. Sit is 2 moves into it, of which the first is the crux. Hardest 7B+ I've ever tried, with a pull on then go approach. I think generating momentum from a bum rocket isn't cricket. However, pulling on and going cleanly, in one motion, is deffo easier than pausing. Is this cricket? Not clear to me.
https://vimeo.com/7119341
For reference. Duffy making something that is not a piece of piss look like a piece of piss. Before the inevitable - the arrow was tape, not chalk!
Thread split time?
-
Hardest 7B+ I've ever tried, with a pull on then go approach. I think generating momentum from a bum rocket isn't cricket. However, pulling on and going cleanly, in one motion, is deffo easier than pausing. Is this cricket? Not clear to me.
In my opinion that problem is very much a length thing rather than a strength thing. Perhaps as I was robbed of the FA by someone a smidgen taller? :worms:
-
I would say enough to pads sit comfortably however that feels for someone. Enough pads to reach the holds could be an absolute max span for a midget and a comfortable sit start for a lankster.
Langsters (6ft plus) get nothing more than a single open pad. If they need extra pads to reach the holds too it's clearly not a sit start.
-
Enough pads for them to sit comfortably, or just enough so they can reach the holds ;)
I would say enough to pads sit comfortably however that feels for someone. Enough pads to reach the holds could be an absolute max span for a midget and a comfortable sit start for a lankster.
I disagree.The idea is not to try and make things as easy as they are for the tall, it's to make things possible from a sit for all heights.
For instance my new Froggat 7b sitter arete Blue 48. The sit move is stretched out for me (average height) off one pad and the first move is hence tricky. This move is pretty trivial for the tall as the undercut is easier to hold for them and they can take the arete higher. By your logic all non-tall folk are fine to trivialise the move by adding pad thickness.
-
Gallt yr Ogof is a great place to cheat the starts. A bunch of the problems have some hard pulls off the ground I suppose.
Saw this monstrosity the other day:
https://youtu.be/r8iniBWwGSA
Might as well start on a ladder.
-
There is certainly a creeping upwards trend. In Font the rule certainly used to be a sit start started on the ground, sans pad. If the first moves ie the start are hard, then adjusting those moves to suit different body shapes could then surely be applied to any of the moves on a problem. If you can't reach the holds from the ground (or generously lets say one average pad) then find another problem. I'm sure it all evens out in the end.
-
This seems excessively militant to me and pretty shit if you're very small e.g. you're a kid. The fact is that it's a better solution (and retains more difficulty) than the alternative, I.e. starting on the sit handholds without sitting. The truth is that the super short are usually highly disadvantaged on a large proportion of the rest of moves, so crying 'unfair' on a second pad to reach the start holds is unnecessary and borderline vindictive.
-
Any problem where the crux is pulling your arse off the ground is invariably shit. Any problem where that's the crux for tall people and the crux for shorter people is actually reaching the starting holds should never even be claimed nor recorded.
-
I'm sure it all evens out in the end.
Not sure about that. There are sit starts where short people maybe be completely unable to pull on with a single normal pad, just impossible. But for tall people, there are hardly any problems you'd say are impossible for the height, just maybe harder at times.
Short people have it hard enough without telling them to move on from a problem just cos a 6'2 bloke did the FA from the only possible holds and doesn't want anyone using more pads than they did.
-
If a normal person can't reach the start holds sat on one pad I'm generally inclined to think it's a shit problem. Or a crouch start.
If you're stacking pads because you literally can't reach the holds, I think that's fine, but stop when you can. If you're stacking them to make a hard move easy, move on.
-
Any problem where the crux is pulling your arse off the ground is invariably shit. Any problem where that's the crux for tall people and the crux for shorter people is actually reaching the starting holds should never even be claimed nor recorded.
Gallt yr Ogof another one, 'sway on' it might be shit, but seems popular and the crux is certainly pulling your arse of the ground. le barre fixe assis, Elephant, popular, Verdict, Cuvier Rampart, but I quite like sit starts because my knees are dodgy and I don't like highballs.
-
If a normal person can't reach the start holds sat on one pad I'm generally inclined to think it's a shit problem. Or a crouch start.
If you're stacking pads because you literally can't reach the holds, I think that's fine, but stop when you can. If you're stacking them to make a hard move easy, move on.
Exactly its not a sit start and as you say probably a crouch start, which are probably open to more interpretative abuse than sit starts.
-
I think people's opinions about this or that type of problem being shit is irrelevant to the question of what is and isn't legitimate.
-
Here's a possible example: http://vimeo.com/459127597
No idea how the FA did it. Cool looking problems.
Here is Dave putting up the F.A sit to my stand (starts at 7:25)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxOA6LRGOV8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxOA6LRGOV8)
Yeah its a cool bloc but another one that has sharp explosive holds unfortunately.
-
Any problem where the crux is pulling your arse off the ground is invariably shit. Any problem where that's the crux for tall people and the crux for shorter people is actually reaching the starting holds should never even be claimed nor recorded.
Having said I think this sort of observation is irrelevant and beside the point, I also disagree with its substance. Yrs, this sort of problem often is pretty poor, but it isn't invariably so, or always umworthy of being recorded. For instance Little Rascal SS at Burbage South is not amazing but is definitely non-shit and worth a name and a grade.
-
This seems excessively militant to me and pretty shit if you're very small e.g. you're a kid. The fact is that it's a better solution (and retains more difficulty) than the alternative, I.e. starting on the sit handholds without sitting. The truth is that the super short are usually highly disadvantaged on a large proportion of the rest of moves, so crying 'unfair' on a second pad to reach the start holds is unnecessary and borderline vindictive.
Militant, hows that? I think as a base measure a sit start from the ground is entirely quantifiable, any variation with extra pads becomes somewhat subjective.
-
There is certainly a creeping upwards trend. In Font the rule certainly used to be a sit start started on the ground, sans pad.
Would it be ok to use pads in Bleau to make the ground level similar to when the first ascent was done, prior to all the subsequent erosion?!
-
Short people have it hard enough without telling them to move on from a problem just cos a 6'2 bloke did the FA from the only possible holds and doesn't want anyone using more pads than they did.
Climbing equivalent of nursery school sports day where everyone who runs the race gets a medal :)
-
Here's a possible example: http://vimeo.com/459127597
No idea how the FA did it. Cool looking problems.
Oh wow, so many issues! The arse thrusting cheaty start off a folded (and propped up?) pad, the dab. Incredible. How does he sleep at night?
Agreed :agree:
This man is a Lanky C*nt faced streak of piss{i should know, he is and has been a great friend for over 10 years}.
In answer to the issues-
The thrusting{which is involuntary} is caused by a horrible welding accident where a molten shard seared its way deep into his gooch, it cannot be removed without permanent and irreversible damage to the workings of his tiny manhood{a bit like a genital version of Ironman}.
The pad IS folded and propped just like his Ego{eh?}
It is because of the "Dab" that Mr Goodwin no longer sleeps at night...
I partially buried him in my garden and for several months have been keeping him alive via an industrial snorkel, through this device he receives air, gruel and contaminated fluids. Sporadically i pump in the putrid sounds of Celine Dion as even sleep deprivation is too good for him.
The only part of this disgusting excuse for a human left above the surface is his scrawny pimpled arse, Cause i need somewhere to park me bike.
Another sinful Dabee quite literally bites the dust :2thumbsup:
The quest continues :devil-smiley:
-
:lol: For a subtle but similar issue see the sit start to Eat It at Fair Head. Stand is 7A. Sit is 2 moves into it, of which the first is the crux. Hardest 7B+ I've ever tried, with a pull on then go approach. I think generating momentum from a bum rocket isn't cricket. However, pulling on and going cleanly, in one motion, is deffo easier than pausing. Is this cricket? Not clear to me.
https://vimeo.com/7119341
For reference. Duffy making something that is not a piece of piss look like a piece of piss. Before the inevitable - the arrow was tape, not chalk!
Thread split time?
I've seen Duffy casually do that many times. Clearly a cricket ascent IMO, as he pulls on then goes. As for it being a height thing—maybe, but I'm lanky AF, so maybe strength has something to do with it. Michael is 8C strong and Eddie B is not weak.
-
Not keen on double mat sit starts but also climb a fair bit on my own and get unusually frightened when head height above the ground. Which is kind of funny revisiting old stuff done in the 90s pre-pads. Oh the knots we tie ourselves in. Or don’t actually.
-
Short people have it hard enough without telling them to move on from a problem just cos a 6'2 bloke did the FA from the only possible holds and doesn't want anyone using more pads than they did.
Climbing equivalent of nursery school sports day where everyone who runs the race gets a medal :)
If it's easy to implement, doesn't affect anyone else, and means different sized people climbing at similar grades have a much greater chance to enjoy working the same stuff together, then I say dish them out :)
If Mr Tickle isn't allowed to miss out all the start holds and pull on really high, then define the start holds and let everyone use the minimum number of pads (>= 1) to access these holds. It has its own merits and flaws but it keeps things like grades much better in check.
-
Interesting topic. Some initial thoughts, 'one pad' could mean anything as a Moon Saturn is very thick compared to other single pads.
I think its often easier to pull on from sitting with a thinner pad or no pad as you are less bunched up. This is counterintuitive as you might think the higher up you are the easier the pull on would be. However, its perhaps a bit like starting a pull up from locked off, which is harder than starting from hanging with straight arms.
For standing starts, starting higher usually makes things easier. Try starting Trigger Cut in the Cave with 2 pads then with 5 pads. Way easier to pull on from higher up which has a knock on effect for the rest of the problem.
-
I think its often easier to pull on from sitting with a thinner pad or no pad as you are less bunched up. This is counterintuitive as you might think the higher up you are the easier the pull on would be. However, its perhaps a bit like starting a pull up from locked off, which is harder than starting from hanging with straight arms.
I often have a similar problem with sit-starts - high up and also so far away from the rock to accommodate my legs that I am pulling outwards on the holds rather than downward. There's a 6c at Caley that I will never do precisely for this reason (despite having climbed a lot of much harder stuff there).
-
copycat cheating off video beta
This seems to be the rot. Just because you saw a video on YouTube of someone doing it like that, doesn't mean its right.
-
Nothing beats the ill informed keyboard warriors who tricked Koyamada to travel back to Switzerland to start Story of two worlds from below the original starting holds. A start that is so daft that it has to this day never been repeated
-
I kind of feel like if you're reasonable and don't take the piss then you can do whatever, you just should be able to look yourself in the eye in a mirror and honestly say you did it without underhand tricks. There aren't really hard rules cos rocks and people are hugely varied.
So if you can't reach the starting holds and you put another pad down that's fine but if you double stacked when you could already reach and made the move way easier. And ultimately 99.999% of the time the only person who this matters to is you and your own sense of "honour" for want of a better word.
I do like specified start holds and clear marking of blocks as in or out and so on. I think that they make problems better, despite the oft-heard assertion that they're eliminate and therefore worse.
-
Agree with Wellsy that defined start holds can be good and there should be no hard rules on things like the number of pads. We should just do what is reasonable. What is reasonable for one person on one boulder may not be reasonable for another. And if someone wants to stack 3 pads to get a good position on the undercut then they will be deservedly mocked because that is not reasonable.
This works in UK Building Regulations, which are functional rather than prescriptive. E.g. "The building shall be designed and constructed so that, in the event of fire, its stability will be maintained for a reasonable period". Bring out your dabs thread is an example of a code of practice demonstrating one way how not to comply with the regulation ;)
-
I climbed a new problem in Strathspey a couple of months ago which might get repeated one day (probably not), which had a disproportionately hard start.
One of those where there's a slab beneath a steep overhang, and bunching yourself into a sit position it becomes awkward and desperate to pull on without feet on the slab, which would make the move trivial.
Solution?
Move a rock under it to sit off :lol:
I'd been moving rocks around anyway to sort the landing, and it made for a much better start and more balanced problem.
Alternatively, I just wasn't good enough to take on the natural challenge laid down by the rock, etc, so I cheated :devil-smiley:
-
What if the sit start is to an arête which you are laying off (this isn’t a rhetorical question BTW)
-
The older i get the more i realise that unless the problem is cutting edge and someone is earning a living from claiming to have climbed something then does it really matter if we sit start something correctly? Everyone’s experience of a problem will be different any way with conditions on the day and other variables. I know that i have sacked off some sit starts as they have felt arbitrary to me even though that is the acknowledged line, in other cases i have been very strict with myself as i understand that the fun of the problem in question is the initial pull.
Usually if claiming a grade for something (not that anyone else generally cares with font 6's and 7's) we know in our heart if it feels the correct grade. If it feels too easy and your feet are using a plinth then stop using the plinth! At the end of the day we are climbing arbitrary bits of rock in the woods or out on the moors and mountains for fun, if it makes it more fun for you stacking pads then go for it (I have the same view of all other tactics as well provided that the rock is not damaged in any way and the next climber can chose their own path). At the end of the day the only person that you are cheating by claiming a higher grade is yourself as nobody else really cares.
As an anecdote some other people seem to get really wound up with this view of climbing, I have occasionally worked problems with others where the line is from a sit start and then whilst working the problem done all the moves from a couple of moves in (obvious starting hold in a roof) decided that i didn't want to do the full line (as the awkward start moves detracted from the rest of the problem for me) started packing up only to be lectured that i hadn't done the line and should just have a rest and get it done as 'you can easily do it next go from the start'. I think some people forget that a day out climbing is meant to be fun and challenging however the boundaries of this game are set between us and the rock alone. As an aside to this I still find it amusing when people ask me ‘what was that you just climbed’ and them being surprised when the response is I have no idea, it is like if the problem doesn’t exist in the pages of a guidebook then it isn’t a legitimate bit of rock to try and climb!
-
You know it only exists if you can add it to your UKC logbook. I get mates who I have shown new stuff who have asked if I am going go put them on UKC, as they want to add them to their logbooks. They always seem a bit disappointed when i tell them i was banned about 8 years ago, and never rejoined.
-
Given that absolutely everyone feels that they are competent to express their opinion about the grade on every single thing they climb like small obedient little Larsenettes, everyone should at least try to figure out if they actually climbed the thing.
Example: I was belaying on the right end of Grande Grotta in Kalymnos and overheard the team next to us talking about how the route Tufantastic was a good first 7b+. I was a bit surprised as while it is not exactly Blocage-Violent hard I did not find it 7a+ either. The last guy to try it in their group went up their draws on the 7a to its right that shares its start. As I saw this I inquired if he wanted to climb Tufantastic, and as that was the case I tried to convince him that he should maybe climb a few metre to the left up the actual route. They were however adamant that they were on the right route. I tried to convince them that I had actually climbed the route and that they were on a completely different bolt line. I quite quickly gave up as they double checked in the guidebook and convinced themselves that they had climbed Tufantastic. Very soft for 7b+ apparently.
If, in a group of three climbers, not one of them can tell the difference between 7a and 7b+ (they were not exactly cruising) I am not surprised that people can start one move higher and convince themselves that they done the real problem either.
-
The older i get the more i realise that unless the problem is cutting edge and someone is earning a living from claiming to have climbed something then does it really matter if we sit start something correctly? Everyone’s experience of a problem will be different any way with conditions on the day and other variables. I know that i have sacked off some sit starts as they have felt arbitrary to me even though that is the acknowledged line, in other cases i have been very strict with myself as i understand that the fun of the problem in question is the initial pull.
Usually if claiming a grade for something (not that anyone else generally cares with font 6's and 7's) we know in our heart if it feels the correct grade. If it feels too easy and your feet are using a plinth then stop using the plinth! At the end of the day we are climbing arbitrary bits of rock in the woods or out on the moors and mountains for fun, if it makes it more fun for you stacking pads then go for it (I have the same view of all other tactics as well provided that the rock is not damaged in any way and the next climber can chose their own path). At the end of the day the only person that you are cheating by claiming a higher grade is yourself as nobody else really cares.
As an anecdote some other people seem to get really wound up with this view of climbing, I have occasionally worked problems with others where the line is from a sit start and then whilst working the problem done all the moves from a couple of moves in (obvious starting hold in a roof) decided that i didn't want to do the full line (as the awkward start moves detracted from the rest of the problem for me) started packing up only to be lectured that i hadn't done the line and should just have a rest and get it done as 'you can easily do it next go from the start'. I think some people forget that a day out climbing is meant to be fun and challenging however the boundaries of this game are set between us and the rock alone. As an aside to this I still find it amusing when people ask me ‘what was that you just climbed’ and them being surprised when the response is I have no idea, it is like if the problem doesn’t exist in the pages of a guidebook then it isn’t a legitimate bit of rock to try and climb!
I completely agree.
It’s great to climb for yourself, and climb what you enjoy.
But I do get annoyed when people post video of them doing an incomplete or dabbing ascent
-
Usually if claiming a grade for something we know in our heart if it feels the correct grade. If it feels too easy and your feet are using a plinth then stop using the plinth!
I sometimes don't find this true when bouldering actually... e.g. I find the gap between an easy 7A that fits and a hard 7A that doesn't can be from something feeling like 6C to something feeling like 7B, which can easily be as big as the gap between something being "in" or "out".. so it's not always possible to tell on "feel" whether something should be in or out. I've certainly had it before, and sometimes climbed things both ways wondering whether it's nails for grade X or piss for grade X with both feeling equally viable.
-
The older i get the more i realise that unless the problem is cutting edge and someone is earning a living from claiming to have climbed something then does it really matter if we sit start something correctly? Everyone’s experience of a problem will be different any way with conditions on the day and other variables. I know that i have sacked off some sit starts as they have felt arbitrary to me even though that is the acknowledged line, in other cases i have been very strict with myself as i understand that the fun of the problem in question is the initial pull.
Usually if claiming a grade for something (not that anyone else generally cares with font 6's and 7's) we know in our heart if it feels the correct grade. If it feels too easy and your feet are using a plinth then stop using the plinth! At the end of the day we are climbing arbitrary bits of rock in the woods or out on the moors and mountains for fun, if it makes it more fun for you stacking pads then go for it (I have the same view of all other tactics as well provided that the rock is not damaged in any way and the next climber can chose their own path). At the end of the day the only person that you are cheating by claiming a higher grade is yourself as nobody else really cares.
As an anecdote some other people seem to get really wound up with this view of climbing, I have occasionally worked problems with others where the line is from a sit start and then whilst working the problem done all the moves from a couple of moves in (obvious starting hold in a roof) decided that i didn't want to do the full line (as the awkward start moves detracted from the rest of the problem for me) started packing up only to be lectured that i hadn't done the line and should just have a rest and get it done as 'you can easily do it next go from the start'. I think some people forget that a day out climbing is meant to be fun and challenging however the boundaries of this game are set between us and the rock alone. As an aside to this I still find it amusing when people ask me ‘what was that you just climbed’ and them being surprised when the response is I have no idea, it is like if the problem doesn’t exist in the pages of a guidebook then it isn’t a legitimate bit of rock to try and climb!
Well said Sir :clap2:
-
The older i get the more i realise that unless the problem is cutting edge and someone is earning a living from claiming to have climbed something then does it really matter if we sit start something correctly? Everyone’s experience of a problem will be different any way with conditions on the day and other variables. I know that i have sacked off some sit starts as they have felt arbitrary to me even though that is the acknowledged line, in other cases i have been very strict with myself as i understand that the fun of the problem in question is the initial pull.
Usually if claiming a grade for something (not that anyone else generally cares with font 6's and 7's) we know in our heart if it feels the correct grade. If it feels too easy and your feet are using a plinth then stop using the plinth! At the end of the day we are climbing arbitrary bits of rock in the woods or out on the moors and mountains for fun, if it makes it more fun for you stacking pads then go for it (I have the same view of all other tactics as well provided that the rock is not damaged in any way and the next climber can chose their own path). At the end of the day the only person that you are cheating by claiming a higher grade is yourself as nobody else really cares.
As an anecdote some other people seem to get really wound up with this view of climbing, I have occasionally worked problems with others where the line is from a sit start and then whilst working the problem done all the moves from a couple of moves in (obvious starting hold in a roof) decided that i didn't want to do the full line (as the awkward start moves detracted from the rest of the problem for me) started packing up only to be lectured that i hadn't done the line and should just have a rest and get it done as 'you can easily do it next go from the start'. I think some people forget that a day out climbing is meant to be fun and challenging however the boundaries of this game are set between us and the rock alone. As an aside to this I still find it amusing when people ask me ‘what was that you just climbed’ and them being surprised when the response is I have no idea, it is like if the problem doesn’t exist in the pages of a guidebook then it isn’t a legitimate bit of rock to try and climb!
This is all very true, but also another example of something that gets said in discussions like this, which is totally beside the point and tends to derail attempts to get to the point.
Everyone with a brain should know that you can climb the rock any way you like. Including any section of any boulder or route, with or without dabs, with or without extra pads, or power-spot. And so long as you’re honest and having fun then it’s all gravy.
All of which says nothing about what are sensible conventions for the description of sit starts.
The point of (an admittedly geeky and pedantic) discussion like this is to agree what the thing we call a sit start is. So that grades make as much sense as possible, for as many climbers as possible. Which I think is a reasonable goal, if perhaps ultimately unachievable.
-
I sometimes don't find this true when bouldering actually... e.g. I find the gap between an easy 7A that fits and a hard 7A that doesn't can be from something feeling like 6C to something feeling like 7B, which can easily be as big as the gap between something being "in" or "out"..
What you're feeling here Barros is your ability to span past the crux.
-
The older i get the more i realise that unless the problem is cutting edge and someone is earning a living from claiming to have climbed something then does it really matter if we sit start something correctly?
For the purposes of piss-taking etc. yes absolutely it matters! Same for dabbing.
-
The older i get the more i realise that unless the problem is cutting edge and someone is earning a living from claiming to have climbed something then does it really matter if we sit start something correctly?
For the purposes of piss-taking etc. yes absolutely it matters! Same for dabbing.
On this I concede you have a point.
-
As an anecdote some other people seem to get really wound up with this view of climbing, I have occasionally worked problems with others where the line is from a sit start and then whilst working the problem done all the moves from a couple of moves in (obvious starting hold in a roof) decided that i didn't want to do the full line (as the awkward start moves detracted from the rest of the problem for me) started packing up only to be lectured that i hadn't done the line and should just have a rest and get it done as 'you can easily do it next go from the start'. I think some people forget that a day out climbing is meant to be fun and challenging however the boundaries of this game are set between us and the rock alone. As an aside to this I still find it amusing when people ask me ‘what was that you just climbed’ and them being surprised when the response is I have no idea, it is like if the problem doesn’t exist in the pages of a guidebook then it isn’t a legitimate bit of rock to try and climb!
I was once two moves in to a problem called Moria at Rhiw Goch, and trying quite hard, when a guy hastened over, clearly concerned that my efforts were for naught, to tell me I had started on the wrong holds.
This was a bit distracting, so I let go and started again, using the prescribed holds. I did the problem straight away, because it was significantly easier than what I'd been doing.
-
The older i get...
This is an entirely laudable position to have for your personal climbing, but where does this leave the idea of guidebooks, names and grades? Surely for problem X to be written up and attempted by others there needs to be some sort of agreement on what problem X is.
-
The older i get...
This is an entirely laudable position to have for your personal climbing, but where does this leave the idea of guidebooks, names and grades? Surely for problem X to be written up and attempted by others there needs to be some sort of agreement on what problem X is.
I think the point is that it should be accepted that it is a guidebook. The critical part of that being 'guide'. It does not have to be definitive or even correct 100% of the time. If we accept what is written up is graded by the first ascentionist based upon the described rules. We can then use this to direct us towards bits of rock that we think might bring us enjoyment based upon our requirements for the day (easy day circuiting or a project). In reality all the guidebook allows is for time poor people such as myself to avoid having to spend time searching out crags and problems that we might gain enjoyment from climbing.
-
The guidebook doesn't have to be correct ? thank goodness because the one I've just written for aid climbing in Sardinia would have been a right pain to fact check. This is especially true as I've never aid climbed or been to Sardinia.
-
As in if the first ascentionist thinks something is 7a and it is 7b not a massive deal. Same if it actually turns out to be 6c. In reality most problems seem to be within one full number grade as most developers are very experienced. Even if I come across the odd problem that is even more incorrect than this it probably isn't going to ruin my day out. Tbh in guidebooks it is of more importance for me to have decent directions to find the blocs to have a good day out than it is to have grades that are super accurate.
-
Again, I have to agree, but suggest that it's beside the point. Just because guidebooks are inherently less than perfectly accurate, and just because grade inaccuracy is a tolerable annoyance, doesn't mean efforts to be as accurate as possible shouldn't be pursued.
-
The older i get the more i realise that unless the problem is cutting edge and someone is earning a living from claiming to have climbed something then does it really matter if we sit start something correctly?
For the purposes of piss-taking etc. yes absolutely it matters! Same for dabbing.
On this I concede you have a point.
On a more serious note, whilst just going climbing and having a nice time doing whatever you like is entirely laudable, there are plenty of people who enjoy climbing things and then logging or recording them in some way.
The problem arises when one of those people logs something they have demonstrably not done to the same standard as everyone else; even more so when they then post a YouTube video and an Instagram post complete with #greentickwankery. Surely it's easy to see why that sort of thing will inevitably get other people's backs up?
-
I think some people forget that a day out climbing is meant to be fun and challenging however the boundaries of this game are set between us and the rock alone.
This, exactly. However, that does change somewhat if a person goes on to publicise and misrepresent what they have done, as it is no longer between the climber and the rock, but includes everyone else.
-
I think people's opinions about this or that type of problem being shit is irrelevant to the question of what is and isn't legitimate.
Well that is true, Monsieur Trilobite, but even so it seems that arguing about what start is legitimate for arse-of-the-ground-crux morpho sitters is a bit like arguing whether it's the best etiquette to eat a plate of dog turd with a spoon, fork, or indeed, a spork (I vote the latter).
-
I think people's opinions about this or that type of problem being shit is irrelevant to the question of what is and isn't legitimate.
Well that is true, Monsieur Trilobite, but even so it seems that arguing about what start is legitimate for arse-of-the-ground-crux morpho sitters is a bit like arguing whether it's the best etiquette to eat a plate of dog turd with a spoon, fork, or indeed, a spork (I vote the latter).
WHAT :o surely the best dish for that , would be a bowl and chopsticks.
Just reinforcing your last retort Fiend and the pointlessness of this entire thread :shrug:
-
I think it's a bit harsh saying the whole thread is pointless. Clearly people care about climbing named problems (even the shit ones with weird morpho sit starts) so I think it makes sense to be explicit about what the rules of the game are. C.f. the shit show around Franco's ascent (or not) of the prow.
-
I think it's considered a bit unfashionable to say that things like grades and rules can enhance the experience but I genuinely think they can. Doing harder, clearly defined problems satisfies me more than easier, ill-defined problems. Sometimes I like to do an easier beauty but I'd be lying if I said that I'd be happy if I never did anything that didn't get a bigger grade than anything I've already done
-
I think it's a bit harsh saying the whole thread is pointless. Clearly people care about climbing named problems (even the shit ones with weird morpho sit starts) so I think it makes sense to be explicit about what the rules of the game are. C.f. the shit show around Franco's ascent (or not) of the prow.
OK i take your point and im not really trying to play down the genuine reasons we have for the rules and boundaries across our sport.
This thread and a host of others could be stacked and gathered under one overarching Title- "How we judge ourselves".
I have come to the conclusion that for me, the art of not judging myself or others is the key to happy climbing, it is very much a work in progress.
-
I think it's considered a bit unfashionable to say that things like grades and rules can enhance the experience but I genuinely think they can. Doing harder, clearly defined problems satisfies me more than easier, ill-defined problems. Sometimes I like to do an easier beauty but I'd be lying if I said that I'd be happy if I never did anything that didn't get a bigger grade than anything I've already done
As a purely hypothetical question if you did a problem that took considerably longer than anything you have tried previously, you had to work out all the moves yourself, you had to pull harder than you can ever remember pulling, you get into a flow state and mange to pull off what you believed could well be impossible for you. Later on however you find that this problem is graded considerably below your hardest climbed problem would this make you happy?
-
Sure but I'd probably disagree with the respective grades. I'd never argue grading is perfect or absolute; it obviously isn't (I also like the idea of grading ascents not problems). But generally speaking harder stuff gets harder grades. And also there's a stylistic thing; a tall gritstone slab at 6C would be much more of an achievement for me than a low limestone crimpfest at 7A, but I'd compare my success against my past capabilities in that style
Point being I like doing stuff that's hard for me and pushing my limits, typically grades are a signifier of that, and so I find they do enhance my experience.
-
I think people's opinions about this or that type of problem being shit is irrelevant to the question of what is and isn't legitimate.
Well that is true, Monsieur Trilobite, but even so it seems that arguing about what start is legitimate for arse-of-the-ground-crux morpho sitters is a bit like arguing whether it's the best etiquette to eat a plate of dog turd with a spoon, fork, or indeed, a spork (I vote the latter).
That's a valid perspective from your stated position, that any problem relevant to this discussion is inherently shit. But that puts your contribution firmly in the realms of noise/heckling. Like me going on a discussion about the finer points of the offside rule and saying the discussion is pointless because football is shit. My opinion is valid, but also irrelevant.
-
Just reinforcing your last retort Fiend and the pointlessness of this entire thread :shrug:
And yet here you are :-\
-
I think it's a bit harsh saying the whole thread is pointless. Clearly people care about climbing named problems (even the shit ones with weird morpho sit starts) so I think it makes sense to be explicit about what the rules of the game are. C.f. the shit show around Franco's ascent (or not) of the prow.
OK i take your point and im not really trying to play down the genuine reasons we have for the rules and boundaries across our sport.
This thread and a host of others could be stacked and gathered under one overarching Title- "How we judge ourselves".
I have come to the conclusion that for me, the art of not judging myself or others is the key to happy climbing, it is very much a work in progress.
I can see how some people put pressure on themselves in an unhealthy way. But that's down to the player, not the game.
What you call judgement others would call understanding. Understanding how difficult something is likely to be. Hence if it's suitable for current abilities. Will this climb make for a fun day? How did it feel for others? Am I likely to fall off (especially if it's high)?
I see grades from a utilitarian perspective. They provide me with information and a means to communicate. The more accurate the better. I don't feel aggrieved if I can't climb a particular grade, or triumphant if I find something easy at a grade, as such I don't feel 'judged' by them. I'm long in the tooth enough to know they are a rough guide at best. I see this imperfection as a reason to try hard to get them as 'right' as they can be. The simplest bit of this is agreeing what the climbs parameters are. The other bits are tricky, why skip the easy bit.
-
I think a poll is called for.
-
I don't see these threads as judgement Rob, more like an expression of bemusement or frustration when people who claim to be working within the broadly agreed 'rules of the game' (by posting videos of themselves climbing named problems with grades) so obviously break those 'rules'.
I'm sure we all like to think that climbing up random rocks should be all laissez-fare and you're free to do whatever you want, but the truth is that bouldering does have widely agreed rules.
-
people who claim to be working within the broadly agreed 'rules of the game' (by posting videos of themselves climbing named problems with grades) so obviously break those 'rules'.
Agreed, this is my way of seeing it. People can climb however they like but most people do things with names and grades. And although it's largely inconsequential as to what they say they climb, agreed upon rules for problems is a completely logical place to arrive at - else it becomes a free for all of claims. We've already got an established set of rules, why not add to that by deciding on start holds and make everything a good amount clearer? People are still free to do as they please, but at least the knowledge is there to inform if so desired.
-
Pointless discussions about climbing minutiae are the best ones!! (Except when they invariably dissolve into the usual Yorkshire circle-jerk about some pico-eliminate bollox at some overrated scrittle heap as usual)
Seriously tho, I don't mind the discussion at all compared to how much I mind the sort of problems in question. Unlike Wellsy I climb for quality as well as challenge. But FWIW, I'm tending to agree with your, and others, sensible perspective about clearly defined starts so everyone knows how the problem works. Also also agreeing with enough pads to be able to pull on the holds "normally". And disagreeing with any tall people, of course.
-
Even this?
Langsters (6ft plus) get nothing more than a single open pad. If they need extra pads to reach the holds too it's clearly not a sit start.
-
I don't see these threads as judgement Rob, more like an expression of bemusement or frustration when people who claim to be working within the broadly agreed 'rules of the game' (by posting videos of themselves climbing named problems with grades) so obviously break those 'rules'.
I'm sure we all like to think that climbing up random rocks should be all laissez-fare and you're free to do whatever you want, but the truth is that bouldering does have widely agreed rules.
Mmmmm :-\ not convinced that the "rules of the game" are as widely agreed or understood{especially by folks new to the sport or transferring from indoor to out} as you might hope.
I also see the frustration and do give credence to the points you make but we sit on either side of the fence on this issue.
Having an online boulder ethics police force dedicated to finding the minutiae of every posted vid or send is a little too authoritarian for my taste. Wouldn't it be better to say "Great send and im really pleased you loved the line, have you tried the lower start that Gaz/Rob did?".
Climbing for me is Art and expression through movement, i may set a defined parameter for a line on the first ascent then someone comes along and blows this out the water for a myriad of reasons{this has happened a lot}, i realise now that this is a good thing as it brings balance.
Im way more interested in how someone felt about a line, the environment, the conditions, their mental and physical state as a comparison to mine when i did or attempted it rather than a specific grade.
Happy to hear your thoughts though :)
-
Im way more interested in how someone felt about a line, the environment, the conditions, their mental and physical state as a comparison to mine when i did or attempted it rather than a specific grade.
Bloody hell grandad that's some wack thinking, do you even Insta, bro??
-
Pointless discussions about climbing minutiae are the best ones!! (Except when they invariably dissolve into the usual Yorkshire circle-jerk about some pico-eliminate bollox at some overrated scrittle heap as usual)
Seriously tho, I don't mind the discussion at all compared to how much I mind the sort of problems in question. Unlike Wellsy I climb for quality as well as challenge. But FWIW, I'm tending to agree with your, and others, sensible perspective about clearly defined starts so everyone knows how the problem works. Also also agreeing with enough pads to be able to pull on the holds "normally". And disagreeing with any tall people, of course.
"And disagreeing with any tall people, of course."
:agree: Yup i'm onboard with that ;)
-
All those things are important too, of course
Especially disagreeing with the tall. Goes without saying.
-
i got so fed up with people cheating sit starts in HK i felt compelled to write this (and include it in the published guidebook too)
https://hongkongclimbing.com/2020/12/30/bouldering-etiquette/ (https://hongkongclimbing.com/2020/12/30/bouldering-etiquette/)
i also did one for routes too ranting at people top roping and spending hours dogging lines
(https://i0.wp.com/hongkongclimbing.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/bd83e70a-753b-435b-a4b6-1d88d6a090b2.jpg)
-
Im way more interested in how someone felt about a line, the environment, the conditions, their mental and physical state as a comparison to mine when i did or attempted it rather than a specific grade.
Happy to hear your thoughts though :)
Appreciation of the inner experience of climbing a problem and recognising that it can be assigned an approximate difficulty within broadly agreed parameters are not mutually exclusive.
Try publishing a guidebook with no grades, just a short poem accompanying each climb. I'd buy it :goodidea:
-
I think you take these threads much more seriously than me Rob. I'd hardly call a bunch of boulder nerds joking on the Internet as authoritarian.
By 'rules of the game' I'm not really referring to the rules of specific eliminates or where a problem starts, more to the basics of what renders an ascent valid or not: dabbing, bouncing off pads to do the 1st move, starting off your mates shoulders. You couldn't claim to have climbed a route if you pulled on gear, likewise you can't claim to have climbed a problem if you kick a pad/tree/spotter halfway through cutting loose. Many people might not care about these things, and that's fine, but if they think they're then able to spray on the internet that they climbed problem X at Y grade they're mistaken. That's where my frustration lies.
As for their mental state at the time, that's not really my business!
-
Im way more interested in how someone felt about a line, the environment, the conditions, their mental and physical state as a comparison to mine when i did or attempted it rather than a specific grade.
Happy to hear your thoughts though :)
Appreciation of the inner experience of climbing a problem and recognising that it can be assigned an approximate difficulty within broadly agreed parameters are not mutually exclusive.
Try publishing a guidebook with no grades, just a short poem accompanying each climb. I'd buy it :goodidea:
That was kind of like the first StoneCountry guide for Scotland - I would even go as far to say as the approach descriptions were nigh on mystical! I've still not found some of the venues...
-
I'd absolutely buy it
-
Im way more interested in how someone felt about a line, the environment, the conditions, their mental and physical state as a comparison to mine when i did or attempted it rather than a specific grade.
Happy to hear your thoughts though :)
Appreciation of the inner experience of climbing a problem and recognising that it can be assigned an approximate difficulty within broadly agreed parameters are not mutually exclusive.
Try publishing a guidebook with no grades, just a short poem accompanying each climb. I'd buy it :goodidea:
I tried floating this kind of thing with John for the new Strathnairn guide, he shot me and my ideas down almost immediately :lol:
-
i got so fed up with people cheating sit starts in HK i felt compelled to write this (and include it in the published guidebook too)
https://hongkongclimbing.com/2020/12/30/bouldering-etiquette/ (https://hongkongclimbing.com/2020/12/30/bouldering-etiquette/)
i also did one for routes too ranting at people top roping and spending hours dogging lines
(https://i0.wp.com/hongkongclimbing.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/bd83e70a-753b-435b-a4b6-1d88d6a090b2.jpg)
This was exactly my point earlier in the thread. Differences in body morphology are part and parcel of what makes bouldering special and fun. If you can't reach the start holds, use an extra pad, that would be common sense. But we also have to accept that if a tall person does a sit start, then it may be much harder or impossible for others. Just as a big dyno might be impossible for people who can't/dislike big dynos (me for instance, now I'm old. I used to like dynos, but I don't want an extra hold added to make them accessible to me now ;)). I'm not in favour of having a wholesale 'its got to be accessible for everyone' type mentality, which I fear is where we might be heading.
-
I think you take these threads much more seriously than me Rob. I'd hardly call a bunch of boulder nerds joking on the Internet as authoritarian.
By 'rules of the game' I'm not really referring to the rules of specific eliminates or where a problem starts, more to the basics of what renders an ascent valid or not: dabbing, bouncing off pads to do the 1st move, starting off your mates shoulders. You couldn't claim to have climbed a route if you pulled on gear, likewise you can't claim to have climbed a problem if you kick a pad/tree/spotter halfway through cutting loose. Many people might not care about these things, and that's fine, but if they think they're then able to spray on the internet that they climbed problem X at Y grade they're mistaken. That's where my frustration lies.
As for their mental state at the time, that's not really my business!
Perhaps i do but i know of a few climbers who shun this particular forum due to its perceived negative outlook and that's a shame cause there is a lot of experience and passion here let alone very useful info and insights.
I have No issue with your definition but more in the way its called out or policed.
Many of my problems get climbed differently and are clearly a separate line, starting or ending slightly right or left depending on the protagonist's style/height/strengths etc and that's fine as it all balances out over the years.
I think most folk will self correct given space and time.
Mental state- i mean, how happy they were with their movement, was it a scrabble, were they terrified like i was, that sort of thing :)
-
I'd absolutely buy it
You can have my copy.
I think haiku in place of route descriptions is the way.
-
I'm not in favour of having a wholesale 'its got to be accessible for everyone' type mentality, which I fear is where we might be heading.
I'm not sure what this fear is based on. Nobody has advocated for 'personal grading' which is the only thing I can think of which comes close to that aim.
The only 'leveling' measure that's been mentioned is start hold specification and adding enough pads to reach the start holds, which you agreed makes sense. Both of which do as much to preserve difficulty as reduce it, as they seek to eliminate starting from a non sit position on sit starts.
-
I believe Julie Andrews has the last word on this:https://youtu.be/drnBMAEA3AM (https://youtu.be/drnBMAEA3AM)