|
|
|
|
fracture
May 2, 2006, 10:56 PM
Post #101 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Fracture and I (and others) had a thread going about sport climbing and fear on our local climbing board, that explored your 3rd point a bit. Fracture's side (correct me frac if I misrepresent) was that a sport climber with a mature lead head climbs with virtually no fear, in a state of complete focus on the climbing.
You got it right, just minus one detail.
The other part is the admission that everyone gets scared sometimes. Minor things like the angle of the rock being something other than what you are used to, or the type of move or length of fall can cause you to be outside your comfort zone. But the more experienced the climber the fewer of these sorts of things will cause problems. Also, an experienced sport climber knows how to get over that (practicing the fall, possibly making it gradually longer, etc) so they can get back to that state of climbing without irrational fear of a fall.
In reply to: By intentionally avoiding stick clipping high, you sacrifice the chance to experience a longer uninterrupted sequence.
This reminds me of one other thing.
Fluxus: do you think there is any difference between using a stick clip (which one could argue is an artificial aid) and lassoing? The only reason I'd suspect you might is that you were talking about the old down climbing from the pre-clipped draw thing, which is very unusual these days (at least everywhere I've ever climbed)---people just carry giant poles, and don't generally ever downclimb from the bolt.
Anyway, I have been getting reasonably proficient at lassoing draws, and since everything has pre-hung draws these days, I often don't bother to use a stick. It is also a very helpful hangdogging tool---you can clip in, and lasso the next draw, in order to make a section easier to work (or to pull past it and "work" it in reverse or feel holds, etc).
(Obviously, from my perspective there is no difference, btw.)
|
|
|
|
|
scrapper
May 2, 2006, 11:35 PM
Post #102 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 69
|
In reply to: I have been getting reasonably proficient at lassoing draws |
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 2, 2006, 11:41 PM
Post #103 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
i love the video with sharma trying to lasso a draw only a few feet up. 3 misses and he just reaches up and clips it.. then everyone laughs at him hehe
ya.. climbing up to clip a draw then down climbing it defeats the purpose of stick clipping over a sketch landing.. (i dont stick clip for any other reason..)
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
May 2, 2006, 11:48 PM
Post #104 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
Try rodeo clipping draws in the middle of the redpoint...that's when you're the MAN
|
|
|
|
|
alpine_monk
May 3, 2006, 2:21 AM
Post #105 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 9, 2005
Posts: 268
|
In reply to: Alpine do you generally hit the ground top roping? all except one of his falls he hits the ground.. Tommy TR'd __% of The Nose straight on.. belayed from above.. cleaning gear.. almost NO one disputes he redpointed it.. hell he didn't even lead the crux.. Beth led that I guess trad ethics are a bit more loose than sport's eh? so because it's short, powerful and f---ing hard, people s--- on folks for clipping the bolts to prevent broken ankles(or more). Caught.. same for you.. he's clipping 2 draws so that he stays off the deck. No one "that knows better" disputes it |
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 3, 2006, 2:36 AM
Post #106 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Ahh .. i see what you mean. My guess is that Tony started with one.. fell __ times.. finally clipped the second.. fell alot more.. then just kept going with that. the first bolt also keeps the rope angled away from the holds since they are mostly sidepulls and gastons until bolt 2.
i'll climb.. but not argue.. how's that?
|
|
|
|
|
scrapper
May 3, 2006, 3:18 AM
Post #107 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 69
|
In reply to: I was saying that it just looked like a waste of time to even have the first bolt clipped.
In reply to: i'll climb.. but not argue.. how's that? |
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
May 3, 2006, 3:44 AM
Post #108 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
hell no.. boulder.. onsite.. while lassoing a draw.. just to fuck with 'em.. HA i'm bringing a rope JUST BECAUSE!'
rumney in 2 weekends.. can't wait.. projects here i come(please don't kick my ass too hard) btw: one of them is a 3 bolt route with the first one stick clipped.. going for the borderline onsite/flash.. ive been told minimal beta but haven't really looked at the route lol .. and no it probably wont go first try so it's a moot point and would call it a flash on the safe side
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
May 3, 2006, 5:47 AM
Post #109 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: all those 10 year old kids crushing at the toprope "redpoint" comps are probably going to be the ones who actually get to decide.... ;)
Or the judges at those comps! :-)
For the most part I can't saw there is much common ground here, but I'm glad you mentioned the way "red point" is now used to mean the same thing as linking in the context of bouldering and top roping. I think that if you read carefully you may even find that we use the term "red point" in the bouldering context in the book (i'm totally embarassed to admit this, but I'm pretty sure its in there. :-( Begin the ruthless razzing and I told ya so posts . . .now. ). it seems that its becoming a short hand for any kind of "send".
Anyway, I wonder what your vision of the future is. At times it sound like you are saying that there are important differences between TRing and red pointing while at others it sound like you are advocating for a future in which the distinction between red pointing and top roping is ignored. I am also puzzled by yours and other's comments regarding the emotional aspects of climbing, either they are significant and meaningful, or they aren't. As I read your comments I get the impression that you are saying there is an important emtional difference, but that this difference can be ignored.
As for me all I ask is that we describe our ascents in a way that is accurate, consistent with climbing history, and that does not give a false impression of what we did on a climb; Regardless of what a magizine says about Sharma, or how the non-climbing parents of pree-teen wannabe climbers describe their competitions.
As for rodeo clipping, its one of my fav-o-rite tricks! That's because its fun to do, not because I think its the same as clipping under one's own power.
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
May 3, 2006, 6:14 AM
Post #110 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
I personally prefer the bouldering terms 'flash' and 'send' to any kind of colorful whateverpoint.
The method you use in order to avoid dying if you fuck up while you're climbing isn't important to the climb itself. It's necessary extra crap that we put up with because dying probably sucks.
A sport lead isn't any more ethically sound or pure or respectable than a top-rope of the same climb, because if you don't fall, the rope never matters, and, when it comes to most sport climbs, the danger of a fall doesn't vary much between top-rope and lead, save in the case of very-overhung routes, when top-roping is more dangerous (this might lead some ethical purists to the very silly conclusion that top-roping roof routes is better style than leading them, since the consequences are more serious, but that's another matter entirely).
Red-point vs. pinkpoint vs. top-rope is a matter only of interest to those interested in rope management over climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
May 3, 2006, 5:40 PM
Post #111 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Some good discussion in here.
But, it only reinforces my belief that the terms for how we climbed a route are hopelessly inadequate.
This doesn't really bother me, but I don't want to have to go into a whole narrative about a single climb, just to define the style.
I usually say onsighted, redpointed, dogged, TRed or couldn't get up the thing.
And while I have a lot of respect for fluxus's definitions and his history in the sport, it does seem like he might be out of touch with how those terms are used by newer climbers. Are those newer climbers wrong? or have these terms evolved?
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
May 3, 2006, 6:46 PM
Post #112 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
In reply to: In reply to: 1) I wonder why you say that red point is pure jargon or can mean what ever we want it to? What I mean by that is that it is a word with no simple and obvious objective definition. . . For example, as I mentioned (and quoted) earlier, climbing magazine called Sharma's mostly-toprope ascent on The Fly a "redpoint". IIRC, they also called Roughling's recent ascent of the 9a Mandallaz Drive a "redpoint", though it was done with a lot of pre-clipped biners. There are also more interesting cases, like "redpointing" on boulder problems or other strange s---: In a semi-recent climbing article, Roughling's ascent of Akira is discussed as a "redpoint" (but they did use scare quotes)---the climb is mostly done with bouldering pads, and the climber is handed a rope to lead the last 15 feet. If you check out the rules for USA Climbing competitions, you will find information about "redpoint format" toprope comps, and "redpoint format" bouldering comps. There is a video on Petzl's website where Steve McClure jokes that he had to redpoint the hike up to the crag because it was so hard---clearly the sense of the word being used for the joke has nothing to do with lead vs. toprope vs. stick-clipping (or hanging draws vs. pre-placed draws). . . . Hopefully the examples above will at least convince you that there is some confusion and room for debate, even if you don't find it particularly convincing....
I have to agree with Flux here. While you do provide some compelling examples, these are mostly fringe examples of top climbers climbing something that is extreme and therefore they adopt special tactics. I could make a similar case that the definition of the color red is jargon by pointing to boundary examples. At some point red becomes purple and orange but when exactly and would you know it if you saw it? In the same way, these extreme tactics or mild-mis-uses of the term don't castrate a term's definitional power. In fact, it's precisely because of these fringe tactics that the write up of these sends will claim a redpoint but then go on to explain exactly how it went down, in effect providing an asterisk for the community.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
May 3, 2006, 7:47 PM
Post #113 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
In reply to: And while I have a lot of respect for fluxus's definitions and his history in the sport, it does seem like he might be out of touch with how those terms are used by newer climbers. Are those newer climbers wrong? or have these terms evolved?
Ouch! Out of touch? I'll have you know that put on my EBs, tie in to my swiss seat, and hip belay with my goldline rope just like the next guy!
Anyway, its true that language changes, that's just the nature of the beast, but I think sidepull hit the nail on the head; so I can't add all that much.
But I think you are right, the new climbers are making mistakes but thats O.K. those of us who know more and have more experience should just teach them a little history and some definitions so they don't say silly things like, "I flashed that route 2nd try!"
Like I said before my concerns are not with so called style or ethics, or anything like that, my concerns are about the kind of claims we make about our climbing and articulating our achievements in a way that others get a clear picture of what we actually did.
|
|
|
|
|
scrapper
May 3, 2006, 9:43 PM
Post #114 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 69
|
In reply to: Like I said before my concerns are not with so called style or ethics, or anything like that, my concerns are about the kind of claims we make about our climbing and articulating our achievements in a way that others get a clear picture of what we actually did.
I still think red-point should be relegated to specific descriptions, and send should be the vague term. It just makes a lot of sense, especially since send is a neologism that carries zero baggage. It even nicely ties together bouldering and sport climbing, two disciplines that I think have the same intent: enjoyment of climbing movement, with minimal distraction due to protection.
Fluxus, I love the video of Lindner and Stack that comes with your book, because it's such an accurate and descriptive document of their projecting. The way I see it, saying something is hard, or giving it a grade, is a laughably vague way to describe a route. The video is a glimpse at how much can be revealed if we let go of the linguistic handrails, and actually pay attention to the climbing itself.
|
|
|
|
|
fluxus
May 3, 2006, 10:03 PM
Post #115 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947
|
scrapper,
Thanks for the comments, esp. about the video. By the way I was just checking out photos of climbing in Texas. Man, you guys have done a ton of photoshopping to make it look like there is good limestone there! Impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
scrapper
May 3, 2006, 10:18 PM
Post #116 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Posts: 69
|
Austin is a pretty fun place to be a sport climber. The climbing is short and not spectacular, but it's still got a lot of interesting stuff to amuse yourself with. Reimer's is a fun place with an active community. Potrero is a 7-hour drive away, and of course there's the Tanks. It could be worse.
Not that I don't daydream about living next to many other crags.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
May 3, 2006, 11:33 PM
Post #117 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: Anyway, I wonder what your vision of the future is. At times it sound like you are saying that there are important differences between TRing and red pointing while at others it sound like you are advocating for a future in which the distinction between red pointing and top roping is ignored.
There are important differences, but they are not differences that make one method intrinsically more valuable than the other.
Leading is usually easier (especially for "working" routes), so it is very important to be able to do so without fear. Clipping at your waist or lower can sometimes make a clip much easier, so you need to be comfortable with that. Skipping clips on lead often can make a climb much easier to link, so you need to be comfortable with that. Neither of these things have anything to do with "boldness" or intrinsically better "style" to me---they are about making things easier, not making things harder.
Stick-clipping is how you "skip" clips that are too close to the ground for you to safely skip on lead. From my perspective, where "style" and "boldness" are irrelevant, Kehl and Lamiche did exactly the same thing on The Fly (skipped both of the clips)---the only difference is that Lamiche's strategy was probably safer (and therefore superior).
When I see people skip clips that are close enough to the ground to risk a decker, which they could easily stick-clip, I don't find it impressive, I just find it laughable.
Here's a good question for you, though: does skipping clips in that manner (risking ground-fall) count as a "redpoint" for you? If so, why? There is no difference in terms of the moves the climber has to make, so the only dimension that is changed is that you might get hurt if you fall, right? Aren't we talking sport climbing here? Isn't it supposed to be as safe as possible?
In reply to: I am also puzzled by yours and other's comments regarding the emotional aspects of climbing, either they are significant and meaningful, or they aren't. As I read your comments I get the impression that you are saying there is an important emtional difference, but that this difference can be ignored.
Yes, I think the emotional challenges of sport climbing are meaningful and significant, but I am not interested in the emotional challenges that arise from unsafe falls. I think physically difficult clips (assuming they are safe) are not challenging from either an emotional or a climbing movement perspective---they are just about doing difficult clips. I avoid these in any way I can (and they are almost always avoidable, in my experience).
The emotional "challenge" of leading safe sport routes is really not much of a challenge. Once you desensitize yourself to the initial fear and learn how to fall, as you know, it is often much easier to work routes on lead than it would be to try to do so on toprope. So, while I think there is an "emotional difference", I think it is one that is not challenging and only worth conquering for strictly pragmatic reasons (namely, allowing you to use more efficient tactics on future routes).
But the mental and emotional challenges involved in doing hard moves while you get increasingly tired is pretty fun and relevant, for me.
Hopefully some of that helps clarify my views for you.... ;)
In reply to: As for me all I ask is that we describe our ascents in a way that is accurate, consistent with climbing history, and that does not give a false impression of what we did on a climb; Regardless of what a magizine says about Sharma, or how the non-climbing parents of pree-teen wannabe climbers describe their competitions.
I agree with all of that except the history part. :D
|
|
|
|
|
mrksprague
May 17, 2006, 7:00 PM
Post #118 of 118
(10076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2003
Posts: 33
|
In reply to: ..you also note that lamiche, kehl and sharma sent The Fly very quickly.. a day or less.. Dave and Luke i'm sure had it pretty wired from working out the first ascent.. getting the bolts right where THEY liked them. ...
Neither Dave or Luke had anything to do with the bolting of The Fly, or even coming up with the name. "Somebody" else bolted it, about when they just started climbing. It probably would have been left as a TR, but a bolt was needed just to get in to the wall to clean it and try the moves and a TR fall near the bottom would result in a ground fall with potential to smash ones back on a ledge. Crash pads were not so de reguer at the time. The anchor for Bottom Feeder was shared to avoid placing more bolts and make sure the climber had to mantle on to the ledge, and since it is off to the side, the second bolt on the route was added to keep you over the route while TRing.
Neither bolts are in optimum placements and considering the hard swinging falls people take on the first one, they should be glue-ins. If Dave agreed, I would be happy to replace them, or even just remove them if he thought that would be best. I bet Jason would have had a much harder time getting his ascent if there had been no bolts though.
Of course The Fly was a joke project to most ("impossible")and nobody was able to come close to climbing the route until Dave and Luke came along.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
