|
|
Forums:
Climbing Disciplines:
Sport Climbing:
Re: [112] To retro or not?:
Edit Log
|
|
fracture
May 30, 2007, 3:43 PM
Views: 4620
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
112 wrote: jt512 wrote: Sport climbing isn't entirely about the moves to most sport climbers What else is there? If there is more, is it possible that these 'other' experiences are at odds with the theme of sport climbing?
Yes, it is at odds. Most self-described "sport climbers" are really "sport clippers". They are gear-wankers, just like many of their traddie brethren. They truly are after the make-believe, watered-down, low-skill "clip up" emulation of traditional climbing which the likes of Healyje confusedly thinks represents the entire modern face of the sport. Personally I think it's funny as hell.
Part of this confusion is why I have begun to prefer the term "gymnastic climbing" (which I think I stole from John Gill's website) to describe the style of climbing I participate in. Many "sport climbers" are highly concerned about ancillary activities like leading or clipping, or other details of the system of protection. Many "sport climbers" think they are playing a completely different game as soon as they untie from a rope (and I, for one, take them at their word). But some of us play the same game on boulder problems and on routes: we're solely after interesting and difficult moves, so it makes sense to select protection systems based purely on their merits for the task at hand, rather than based on some ill-defined notion of "style".
(This post was edited by fracture on May 30, 2007, 3:47 PM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on May 30, 2007, 3:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
