|
mturner
Jan 4, 2008, 9:22 PM
Post #51 of 60
(2515 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
jacksdefeat wrote: maybe i'll think differently after i've been climbing 6 years, but i hope i won't.
When your crag gets crowded and you have to wait in line, or worse, your crag gets closed because of over/misuse then you might regret that comment.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jan 4, 2008, 9:24 PM
Post #52 of 60
(2508 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
jacksdefeat wrote: i'm just glad to be climbing and know that with exposure comes development. i know it has its problems, too, but the possibility for development outweighs them in my mind. maybe i'll think differently after i've been climbing 6 years, but i hope i won't.
I wouldn't say climbing 'needs' more development. It's been steady since the early days without money or exposure.
The only way more money can come into climbing, is if more climbers come into climbing. That's the selfish bit. I don't mind new climbers at all, but I do mind hordes descending. If that means that mister super dedicated climber can't make a comfortable living from climbing well then boo hoo.
Perhaps you don't mind standing in line to climb, gang toproping, large groups watching while one person climbs, etc. Personally I think that's lame, and would rather avoid crowded crags.
Climbing is thriving as it is. I see no benefit to having it on tv or in the olympics. Not sure what the gains of development could be.
|
|
|
|
|
jacksdefeat
Jan 4, 2008, 9:33 PM
Post #53 of 60
(2499 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2007
Posts: 16
|
our mentalities probably come from where we are able to climb.
i'm stuck in central indiana, where i know there has to be some more possible areas to be developed than muscatatuck park and hemlock cliffs, and the red is a weekend trip.
around here, we're just stoked to have anything worthwhile to climb, even if it's plastic. so, in my eyes, development and a more encouraging community would benefit everyone a bit more.
and like i said, maybe i'll think differently after climbing longer and dealing with some overcrowding issues. if so, fair enough, and i'll admit i was wrong.
(This post was edited by jacksdefeat on Jan 4, 2008, 9:36 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jan 4, 2008, 10:03 PM
Post #54 of 60
(2482 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
jacksdefeat wrote: around here, we're just stoked to have anything worthwhile to climb, even if it's plastic. so, in my eyes, development and a more encouraging community would benefit everyone a bit more.
Well, some places just don't have that much rock to begin with. Just gotta deal with that one, or start tramping around in the woods to find new stone.
You're new, so I sympathize with your dilemma. It can be a challenge to find good partners. The reason is generally that it takes a fair amount of time to train/instruct/mentor/whatever a new climber to the point where they become a good partner. By itself, this isn't a big deal, but the fact is, is that most new climbers are in it as a fad, most probably tire of it and move on after two years or less.
Who wants to invest their time in someone who is just going to quit? I learned this lesson the hard way, trying to get my friends into climbing. What a mistake! Climbing just isn't for some people. Most people, actually. After a while, it becomes easier to identify who really wants to climb, and who won't be into climbing.
Once you crack that barrier though and people figure out that you're going to be around a while, I think you'll find the climbing community quite supportive.
|
|
|
|
|
norsk
Jan 4, 2008, 10:05 PM
Post #55 of 60
(2481 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2005
Posts: 33
|
As Curt said on page 2:
"The topic of the main discussion here had actually evolved into whether or not "Wheel" is more accurately viewed as a longer climb--or as a boulder problem, and therefore what rating system could most accurately describe its difficulty."
So, to stay on track...no body yet has pointed out the real answer to what the route should be considered, and therefore how it should be graded. At 11 moves into the climbing, he takes off his beanie. So, as I understand it, that makes the route twofold: an 11 move boulder problem followed immediately by a long free solo.
Either way, amazing climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jan 5, 2008, 6:25 PM
Post #56 of 60
(2408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
norsk wrote: At 11 moves into the climbing, he takes off his beanie. So, as I understand it, that makes the route twofold: an 11 move boulder problem followed immediately by a long free solo.
WTF?! Since when is removing a beanie or any other sort of rest on the rock a requisite for calling a climb a free solo?! That's the lamest definition I have ever heard.
|
|
|
|
|
norsk
Jan 5, 2008, 10:01 PM
Post #57 of 60
(2373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2005
Posts: 33
|
mturner wrote: norsk wrote: At 11 moves into the climbing, he takes off his beanie. So, as I understand it, that makes the route twofold: an 11 move boulder problem followed immediately by a long free solo. WTF?! Since when is removing a beanie or any other sort of rest on the rock a requisite for calling a climb a free solo?! That's the lamest definition I have ever heard.
whoa, easy there mturner...i was only trying to make a joke about boulderers wearing beanies (so therefore, once he removed the beanie he was no longer bouldering, and since he didn't have a rope he was free soloing).
|
|
|
|
|
gobias
Jan 5, 2008, 10:06 PM
Post #58 of 60
(2372 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2007
Posts: 35
|
i thought it was funny.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jan 6, 2008, 1:46 AM
Post #59 of 60
(2345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
norsk wrote: mturner wrote: norsk wrote: At 11 moves into the climbing, he takes off his beanie. So, as I understand it, that makes the route twofold: an 11 move boulder problem followed immediately by a long free solo. WTF?! Since when is removing a beanie or any other sort of rest on the rock a requisite for calling a climb a free solo?! That's the lamest definition I have ever heard. whoa, easy there mturner...i was only trying to make a joke about boulderers wearing beanies (so therefore, once he removed the beanie he was no longer bouldering, and since he didn't have a rope he was free soloing).
oh.  My sincere apologies. Didn't catch the sarcasm or the joke...which is actually pretty funny.
|
|
|
|
|
quiteatingmysteak
Jan 21, 2008, 11:12 PM
Post #60 of 60
(2220 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 804
|
mturner wrote: norsk wrote: mturner wrote: norsk wrote: At 11 moves into the climbing, he takes off his beanie. So, as I understand it, that makes the route twofold: an 11 move boulder problem followed immediately by a long free solo. WTF?! Since when is removing a beanie or any other sort of rest on the rock a requisite for calling a climb a free solo?! That's the lamest definition I have ever heard. whoa, easy there mturner...i was only trying to make a joke about boulderers wearing beanies (so therefore, once he removed the beanie he was no longer bouldering, and since he didn't have a rope he was free soloing). oh. My sincere apologies. Didn't catch the sarcasm or the joke...which is actually pretty funny.
You need to get your head examined... if you didn't see that one coming, life will have many quaint challenges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
