|
|
|
|
mal7623
Dec 31, 2010, 4:46 PM
Post #1 of 92
(7297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2009
Posts: 8
|
I'm thinking of relocating, and living near a good climbing destination is high on my list.
I've chosen Las Vegas and I am curious what everyone has to say about this. Here are the pro's from my standpoint:
-Nearly year round climbing temps (perhaps 2-3 months too cold, no months too hot considering proper route selection)
-Able to live very close to Red Rock canyon for sport and trad
-Some good beginner to advanced big walls for practice in RRC
-About a 9 hour drive to Yosemite for big wall trips or any other climbing out there.
-3 hours from Joshua Tree
-3 hours to Zion
-Several more hours to other places in Utah
-7 hours or so to Phoenix/Tucson and plenty of other AZ climbing
-The convenience of a big city, and depressed housing prices make owning affordable
Some may point out the hurting job market in Las Vegas right now, but it will not apply to me because I am self employed and financially stable.
Can anyone make a compelling argument for a better city to live for climbing?
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Dec 31, 2010, 5:38 PM
Post #2 of 92
(7265 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
You forgot cons such as Las Vegas being trashy, tacky, the paragon of crass unsustainability, and full of idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
fresh
Dec 31, 2010, 6:43 PM
Post #3 of 92
(7236 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2007
Posts: 1199
|
nice thinly veiled brag post for being financially stable.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Dec 31, 2010, 6:49 PM
Post #4 of 92
(7228 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
Not necessarily; perhaps they are a nurse, doctor or some other profession that is fairly in demand with work in most areas.
Certainly can buy a new place at low price there.... I prefer an abode with character that can only come from time, but maybe there are some old rancher's shack out in the surrounding area or something.
Vegas does have an easy-access airport, but I don't think I would want to live there year-round if I had to BE there during summer.
|
|
|
|
|
mal7623
Dec 31, 2010, 7:55 PM
Post #5 of 92
(7197 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2009
Posts: 8
|
fresh wrote: nice thinly veiled brag post for being financially stable.
You speak like someone who has a complex.
I only mentioned the job and money issue because it is one of the more serious reasons NOT to move to Las Vegas right now. Unemplyment is roughly 15%, one of the highest in the country.
But you may or may not know that, given your edumacation.
|
|
|
|
|
mal7623
Dec 31, 2010, 7:58 PM
Post #6 of 92
(7194 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2009
Posts: 8
|
This thread isn't really going in a good direction.
Here, let's make it simple. Can anyone name a good large city to live for climbing? I feel like it's hard to make a case for any better than Las Vegas.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Dec 31, 2010, 8:17 PM
Post #7 of 92
(7184 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
mal7623 wrote: This thread isn't really going in a good direction. Here, let's make it simple. Can anyone name a good large city to live for climbing? I feel like it's hard to make a case for any better than Las Vegas.
you make a good argument for vegas, but so does camhead against it; i guess it just depends on what you want.
I know I'll get one-starred for this, but I always say Boston is a WAY underated climbing city. For one, it's a damn cool place to live, but also it's only a few hours to the 'gunks, a few hours to the 'daks, a few hours to Acadia, hour and a half to Rumney, 2.5 to Cannon and 2.5 to north conway. plus, it has the closest airport to europe and can get you direct flights to just about anywhere in the US. on top of that, the climbing scene (aka, the climbers who live in the boston area) are damn cool who actually go out climbing on a regular basis.
OK, so it ain't cheap, but good cities rarely are. And yeah, the winters are annoying, but if you like ice then there's plenty still to do.
Also, anywhere in between or near the New and the Red has to be good. I don't know any of those cities, but man, that's a helluvalotta world class climbing right there.
|
|
|
|
|
grantut
Dec 31, 2010, 8:38 PM
Post #8 of 92
(7169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2010
Posts: 10
|
I grew up in reading,pa. Moving to the west was the best thing I have ever done. I suggest SLC. Sorry but there is so much climbing close by I'm not about to list it all. Outdoor climbing here isn't year round, but if you like ice climbing, mountaineering, skiing, boarding, etc. this is the place to play all year. The people are nice and the views are spectacular!
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Dec 31, 2010, 9:49 PM
Post #9 of 92
(7140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
What about Flagstaff? I visited a couple climbers there a few weeks ago, and was told that though Flag itself was not-climbingish for Jan-Feb, just a short drive away is incredible climbing. I followed a friend on Queen Victoria, a sandstone spire in Sedona, and it was a stellar day.
With the mountains in the area, you can get cooler temps while hot down low, I am pretty sure. Others more familiar with the region could provide better info.
And Flagstaff has a cool vibe.
In defense of Vegas, a pro mountain biker told me they have an awesome adventure community in Vegas. Lots of people hike, bike, climb, run.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Dec 31, 2010, 10:04 PM
Post #10 of 92
(7131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
grantut wrote: I grew up in reading,pa. Moving to the west was the best thing I have ever done. I suggest SLC. Sorry but there is so much climbing close by I'm not about to list it all. Outdoor climbing here isn't year round, but if you like ice climbing, mountaineering, skiing, boarding, etc. this is the place to play all year. The people are nice and the views are spectacular!
While we don't have year round climbing in SLC, if you're willing to expand your driving radius up to 5 hrs, you can get 11 months out of the year by going south to the St. George area. Within reasonable distance of SLC we also have climbing in an elevation range of 5000' to 10600' - very handy for when it gets hot in the summer.
Also, City of Rocks is 3 hrs, Tetons are 5 and Red Rocks is 6.
|
|
|
|
|
Vegasclimber10
Dec 31, 2010, 11:39 PM
Post #11 of 92
(7090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2010
Posts: 188
|
I think I chimed in on another one of your posts here or elsewhere, and suggested Vegas. Glad to hear you decided to head out our way!
I find that most people - not all, but most - that talk badly about Vegas have never spent any real time here, or they were born here and have the standard wanna see the world complex.
We love it, and for when it gets hot, there are great alternatives within an hour. I don't think there are many days that it gets too hot to climb on Charleston.
I will take being able to climb 8+ months out of the year and be within an easy half hour to half days drive to more great rock then I will probably ever climb.
|
|
|
|
|
potreroed
Jan 1, 2011, 12:31 AM
Post #12 of 92
(7060 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1454
|
Chattanooga, TN.
Madison, WI.
Austin, TX
|
|
|
|
|
vinnie83
Jan 1, 2011, 12:45 AM
Post #13 of 92
(7049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 28, 2004
Posts: 112
|
I've been living in vegas for the past three years and if you can look past the strip and the cookie cutter houses its a great place to live climbing wise. In the summer you're a little more limited on which areas you can climb at (summer is a perfect time to climb epi) but between charleston and red rocks I've always managed to get in a lot of climbing when its hot. The one downside to red rocks is it has become extremely crowded. It seems like every noob in the country has decided to travel to red rocks to do their first multipitch route and the classic moderates have lines even on weekdays.
Another city that you don't hear a lot about is albuquerque. There's tons of relatively uncrowded crags all over the place and you can climb year round.
|
|
|
|
|
mal7623
Jan 1, 2011, 1:16 AM
Post #14 of 92
(7037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2009
Posts: 8
|
I'm surprised people complain about the crowds, especially residents. If you live in Las Vegas, haven't you already climbed the most popular 20 or 30 classics anyway?
I've been visiting Las Vegas to climb 2-3 times a year for the last several years, and I feel like I've already done most of the classics at my grade. I feel like if you are adventurous with route selection, the likelihood of bumping into crowds is unlikely.
Its rarely been a problem for me anyway. I kind of enjoy racking up at the car and seeing other climbers pour into the parking areas. I have been stuck behind a couple groups on climbs, but its never been something that ruined the day for me.
|
|
|
|
|
phang_nga
Jan 1, 2011, 2:37 AM
Post #15 of 92
(7005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2006
Posts: 326
|
I guess Vegas is ok if you have to live in the US. Almost anywhere in the Southwest would be nice.
I love America, but I don't ever want to do anything there other than come for a visit. There are much better places in the world to live:
- More freedom (real freedom, not the bogus crap spouted constantly by flag-waving simpletons)
- Very low taxes
- Free healthcare!
- No unemployment issues
- Very low cost of living (I can easily live on $400 - $500 per month)
- Unlimited climbing potential
* Phang Nga Bay
* Phang Nga Province
* Khao Sok National Park
* Krabi
* One hour $100 R/T flight to Sumatra
* Two hour $150 R/T flight to Chiang Mai
* Next door to Laos
* Yada, Yada, Yada
Add to all of this:
- Perfect weather
- Great food
- Beautiful women
- Friendly people
- No rednecks
From sunny Phuket, Thailand (92 degrees with a light breeze)
|
|
|
|
|
grantut
Jan 1, 2011, 6:05 AM
Post #16 of 92
(6959 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2010
Posts: 10
|
seriously! I believe there are nicer places to live other than the usa, but you are knocking it a little to hard.
Be easy.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Jan 1, 2011, 6:33 AM
Post #17 of 92
(6933 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
camhead wrote: You forgot cons such as Las Vegas being trashy, tacky, the paragon of crass unsustainability, and full of idiots.
HEY! I resemble that remark! 
In reply to: I'm thinking of relocating, and living near a good climbing destination is high on my list. I've chosen Las Vegas and I am curious what everyone has to say about this. Here are the pro's from my standpoint: -Nearly year round climbing temps (perhaps 2-3 months too cold, no months too hot considering proper route selection) -Able to live very close to Red Rock canyon for sport and trad -Some good beginner to advanced big walls for practice in RRC -About a 9 hour drive to Yosemite for big wall trips or any other climbing out there. -3 hours from Joshua Tree -3 hours to Zion -Several more hours to other places in Utah -7 hours or so to Phoenix/Tucson and plenty of other AZ climbing
Actually, you've got your times a little off (in a good way!)- its only about 6.5 to Yosemite (or the Needles), and 4hrs to Phoenix (6 to Tucson), 10hrs to Denver, and lets not forget- 3-5 hours to the Sierra, which has more rock than you can imagine. In fact, if you're willing to drive an entire day (10hrs), there is not much you cant get to in the west- Smith Rock/Squamish and maybe Ten Sleep and places in Wyoming.
Also, you can totally climb year round here- the summer is probably the least climbable- the winter is when Red Rock really shines as a destination. This past two or three weeks has been the least climable red rocks has been in ages, but the snowfall has more than made up for it if you ski.
People seem to hate vegas, but honestly, its no different than any other west coast city. The bullshit of the strip and tourists are not a part of every day life and there's a growing community here that is starting to thrive.
In terms of climable rock (esp long routes) and temperate weather, Las Vegas is tough to beat as a metro area. Denver and SLC are close, but they dont have the climate to match las vegas', imho.
This is not to bag on those cities mentioned- Chattanooga was amazing, and I was REALLY impressed with it when I visited this fall- great town. SLC- is obviously a great choice- I know a ton of folks who love it. It really comes down to what you want to get after.
|
|
|
|
|
phang_nga
Jan 1, 2011, 6:55 AM
Post #18 of 92
(6925 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2006
Posts: 326
|
grantut wrote: seriously! I believe there are nicer places to live other than the usa, but you are knocking it a little to hard. Be easy.
I thought I was being rather easy.
I didn't mention obnoxious Jesus freaks, Teabaggers, Rethuglicans, over-the-top racism, Islamophobia, a completely ethicless military that is the main reason the economy is shot or a host of other things. I was being nice.  
I do love my country, but I couldn't go back if I wanted to thanks to a pre-existing health condition (rare lung disease). FYI, I get completely free high-quality healthcare in Thailand.
I love America. It's a stunning country. That's why we stole it from the Native Americans. 
There are plenty of wonderful, kind, charitable people in America. I miss them.
|
|
|
|
|
grantut
Jan 1, 2011, 4:24 PM
Post #19 of 92
(6852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2010
Posts: 10
|
hey you made some good points.
I want to move Thialand.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Jan 1, 2011, 4:31 PM
Post #20 of 92
(6848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: I know I'll get one-starred for this, but I always say Boston is a WAY underated climbing city. For one, it's a damn cool place to live, but also it's only a few hours to the 'gunks, a few hours to the 'daks, a few hours to Acadia, hour and a half to Rumney, 2.5 to Cannon and 2.5 to north conway. plus, it has the closest airport to europe and can get you direct flights to just about anywhere in the US. on top of that, the climbing scene (aka, the climbers who live in the boston area) are damn cool who actually go out climbing on a regular basis.
Boston? Seriously? For climbing? It's certainly not a bad place to live but if talking about where to move solely based on climbing, then Boston is probably not in the top 100. If he were looking for a good med school or job that only a city could provide, then Boston's in the running, but not for a destination just for climbing. First, to get to "good" climbing, we're talking 2 hours. If you are also an ice climber, then Boston moves up the list, but there are towns that have year-round climbing almost out your front door.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jan 1, 2011, 4:53 PM
Post #21 of 92
(6841 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: I know I'll get one-starred for this, but I always say Boston is a WAY underated climbing city. For one, it's a damn cool place to live, but also it's only a few hours to the 'gunks, a few hours to the 'daks, a few hours to Acadia, hour and a half to Rumney, 2.5 to Cannon and 2.5 to north conway. plus, it has the closest airport to europe and can get you direct flights to just about anywhere in the US. on top of that, the climbing scene (aka, the climbers who live in the boston area) are damn cool who actually go out climbing on a regular basis. Boston? Seriously? For climbing? It's certainly not a bad place to live but if talking about where to move solely based on climbing, then Boston is probably not in the top 100. If he were looking for a good med school or job that only a city could provide, then Boston's in the running, but not for a destination just for climbing. First, to get to "good" climbing, we're talking 2 hours. If you are also an ice climber, then Boston moves up the list, but there are towns that have year-round climbing almost out your front door. Josh
damn, and you were one of the cool people I was thinking about.
yeah, it's not a two-minute's walk to the nearest crag, but for me, I don't know, maybe growing up and having to drive an hour to nearest restaurant in the winter made me tougher than that. A two-hour drive for me isn't so bad. And I happen to think the climbing that is available is definitely worth driving for.
I don't know, but I climbed more living in Boston than I have climbed any where else. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've climbed more in the limited Northeast season than some of my friends who have either moved to CO or live around New Paltz where the climbing is readily accessible. I tend to think that the reason for that is because the Boston climbing scene is a strong one: the people there are motivated to climb as often as possible, are willing make a weekend of it on a regular basis, and generally seem to make climbing a priority.
I knew people were going to shit on me for it (though I didn't expect an actual Bostonian to do it), but I stand by my statement: boston is a good climbing town.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jan 1, 2011, 5:21 PM
Post #22 of 92
(6830 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: I know I'll get one-starred for this, but I always say Boston is a WAY underated climbing city. For one, it's a damn cool place to live, but also it's only a few hours to the 'gunks, a few hours to the 'daks, a few hours to Acadia, hour and a half to Rumney, 2.5 to Cannon and 2.5 to north conway. plus, it has the closest airport to europe and can get you direct flights to just about anywhere in the US. on top of that, the climbing scene (aka, the climbers who live in the boston area) are damn cool who actually go out climbing on a regular basis. Boston? Seriously? For climbing? It's certainly not a bad place to live but if talking about where to move solely based on climbing, then Boston is probably not in the top 100. If he were looking for a good med school or job that only a city could provide, then Boston's in the running, but not for a destination just for climbing. First, to get to "good" climbing, we're talking 2 hours. If you are also an ice climber, then Boston moves up the list, but there are towns that have year-round climbing almost out your front door. Josh damn, and you were one of the cool people I was thinking about. yeah, it's not a two-minute's walk to the nearest crag, but for me, I don't know, maybe growing up and having to drive an hour to nearest restaurant in the winter made me tougher than that. A two-hour drive for me isn't so bad. And I happen to think the climbing that is available is definitely worth driving for. I don't know, but I climbed more living in Boston than I have climbed any where else. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've climbed more in the limited Northeast season than some of my friends who have either moved to CO or live around New Paltz where the climbing is readily accessible. I tend to think that the reason for that is because the Boston climbing scene is a strong one: the people there are motivated to climb as often as possible, are willing make a weekend of it on a regular basis, and generally seem to make climbing a priority. I knew people were going to shit on me for it (though I didn't expect an actual Bostonian to do it), but I stand by my statement: boston is a good climbing town.
I can see where you're coming from, burnsie. I actually got more into climbing when I moved away from Utah, and realized that I had to maximize my precious climbing weekends and really make them count, and became more serious about training, etc. I'm still in that mode in here in Ohio. You have to approach climbing differently when it is not out your back door.
However, obviously, none of this means that Boston is a good climbing town, any more than Dallas, Columbus, or Chicago.
When I am looking for a really good place to live for climbing, I think of these criteria:
1. Local Rock for after work sessions
2. Reasonable distance to national destinations for day or weekend trips.
3. Diversity in climate for year round climbing
4. Diversity in rock and climbing types
5. Solid climbing community for partners
The top of the list would of course be somewhere like Moab, Bend, Fayetteville WV, or Durango, but job prospects are a bit limited in places like that.
In no particular order, here are my top choices (I've left out the Front Range because it is oversaturated as it is): Flagstaff, Grand Junction, SLC, Reno, Albuquerque, Chattanooga, Asheville, St. George.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jan 1, 2011, 5:33 PM
Post #23 of 92
(6822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
camhead wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: I know I'll get one-starred for this, but I always say Boston is a WAY underated climbing city. For one, it's a damn cool place to live, but also it's only a few hours to the 'gunks, a few hours to the 'daks, a few hours to Acadia, hour and a half to Rumney, 2.5 to Cannon and 2.5 to north conway. plus, it has the closest airport to europe and can get you direct flights to just about anywhere in the US. on top of that, the climbing scene (aka, the climbers who live in the boston area) are damn cool who actually go out climbing on a regular basis. Boston? Seriously? For climbing? It's certainly not a bad place to live but if talking about where to move solely based on climbing, then Boston is probably not in the top 100. If he were looking for a good med school or job that only a city could provide, then Boston's in the running, but not for a destination just for climbing. First, to get to "good" climbing, we're talking 2 hours. If you are also an ice climber, then Boston moves up the list, but there are towns that have year-round climbing almost out your front door. Josh damn, and you were one of the cool people I was thinking about. yeah, it's not a two-minute's walk to the nearest crag, but for me, I don't know, maybe growing up and having to drive an hour to nearest restaurant in the winter made me tougher than that. A two-hour drive for me isn't so bad. And I happen to think the climbing that is available is definitely worth driving for. I don't know, but I climbed more living in Boston than I have climbed any where else. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've climbed more in the limited Northeast season than some of my friends who have either moved to CO or live around New Paltz where the climbing is readily accessible. I tend to think that the reason for that is because the Boston climbing scene is a strong one: the people there are motivated to climb as often as possible, are willing make a weekend of it on a regular basis, and generally seem to make climbing a priority. I knew people were going to shit on me for it (though I didn't expect an actual Bostonian to do it), but I stand by my statement: boston is a good climbing town. I can see where you're coming from, burnsie. I actually got more into climbing when I moved away from Utah, and realized that I had to maximize my precious climbing weekends and really make them count, and became more serious about training, etc. I'm still in that mode in here in Ohio. You have to approach climbing differently when it is not out your back door. However, obviously, none of this means that Boston is a good climbing town, any more than Dallas, Columbus, or Chicago. When I am looking for a really good place to live for climbing, I think of these criteria: 1. Local Rock for after work sessions 2. Reasonable distance to national destinations for day or weekend trips. 3. Diversity in climate for year round climbing 4. Diversity in rock and climbing types 5. Solid climbing community for partners The top of the list would of course be somewhere like Moab, Bend, Fayetteville WV, or Durango, but job prospects are a bit limited in places like that. In no particular order, here are my top choices (I've left out the Front Range because it is oversaturated as it is): Flagstaff, Grand Junction, SLC, Reno, Albuquerque, Chattanooga, Asheville, St. George.
Not going to disagree with any of that. I just think that motivation to climb is often undervalued in relation to location because without the former, the latter becomes irrelevant. That and I think the climbing that is available around Boston has to be better than Dallas (sorry Kachoong!).
Of course, I'd live in Vegas, too, for the reasons the OP stated (and I really don't like vegas as a town that much).
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Jan 1, 2011, 5:39 PM
Post #24 of 92
(6817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: damn, and you were one of the cool people I was thinking about.
Oh, in that case, I take it all back. You're Brilliant!
In reply to: yeah, it's not a two-minute's walk to the nearest crag, but for me, I don't know, maybe growing up and having to drive an hour to nearest restaurant in the winter made me tougher than that. A two-hour drive for me isn't so bad. And I happen to think the climbing that is available is definitely worth driving for.
Don't get me wrong, Boston is a lot better than a lot of areas, but if we are making a list...Boston is not near the top. That's all I'm saying.
In reply to: I don't know, but I climbed more living in Boston than I have climbed any where else. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've climbed more in the limited Northeast season than some of my friends who have either moved to CO or live around New Paltz where the climbing is readily accessible.
That has more to do with individual lives, commitment and responsibilities. I am pretty sure that if I had readily accessible rock out my front door, i would take advantage of it.
In reply to: I tend to think that the reason for that is because the Boston climbing scene is a strong one: the people there are motivated to climb as often as possible, are willing make a weekend of it on a regular basis, and generally seem to make climbing a priority.
This is true.
In reply to: I knew people were going to shit on me for it (though I didn't expect an actual Bostonian to do it), but I stand by my statement: boston is a good climbing town.
You're fun to shit on.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jan 1, 2011, 6:00 PM
Post #25 of 92
(6801 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: damn, and you were one of the cool people I was thinking about. Oh, in that case, I take it all back. You're Brilliant! In reply to: yeah, it's not a two-minute's walk to the nearest crag, but for me, I don't know, maybe growing up and having to drive an hour to nearest restaurant in the winter made me tougher than that. A two-hour drive for me isn't so bad. And I happen to think the climbing that is available is definitely worth driving for. Don't get me wrong, Boston is a lot better than a lot of areas, but if we are making a list...Boston is not near the top. That's all I'm saying. In reply to: I don't know, but I climbed more living in Boston than I have climbed any where else. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've climbed more in the limited Northeast season than some of my friends who have either moved to CO or live around New Paltz where the climbing is readily accessible. That has more to do with individual lives, commitment and responsibilities. I am pretty sure that if I had readily accessible rock out my front door, i would take advantage of it. In reply to: I tend to think that the reason for that is because the Boston climbing scene is a strong one: the people there are motivated to climb as often as possible, are willing make a weekend of it on a regular basis, and generally seem to make climbing a priority. This is true. In reply to: I knew people were going to shit on me for it (though I didn't expect an actual Bostonian to do it), but I stand by my statement: boston is a good climbing town. You're fun to shit on. Josh
I knew that bullseye was a bad idea for a tattoo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
