|
wraith
Dec 10, 2008, 7:50 PM
Post #1 of 16
(1941 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2007
Posts: 22
|
Fairly new to this sport I love. Can someone please explain why people seem to deem "eliminate routes" as lesser of a feat than a route where you use all the features that are there but is easier. It seems Dave Mccloud who I think is fantastic has said his E-11 in an official eliminate and if he grabbed the arete it would be E-10. He didn't, so it goes E-11. IMHO, if you grab the arete at the top, aren't you doing a different route than Dave did? Is Es Pontas an Eliminate because Pringle found easier climbing around the dyno that Sharma did? Thats kinda of splitting hairs to me. Isn't that why there are variations to routes and that those routes have different or slightly different names and grades? Interested to know what you think. Vin C NYC
(This post was edited by wraith on Dec 10, 2008, 7:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Dec 10, 2008, 8:11 PM
Post #2 of 16
(1903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I think it's more an aesthetic than anything else. To me, eliminates just aren't all that interesting. They bring a gym-climbing aspect to it. But, y'know, whatever. This sport is nothing if not customizable. People want to climb eliminates? Let 'em. I hope they have fun.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Dec 10, 2008, 8:17 PM
Post #3 of 16
(1892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
An 'eliminate' has more rules to follow. You can't just follow the line of weakness up the rock. It's adding an artificial difficulty.
|
|
|
|
|
limeydave
Dec 10, 2008, 8:25 PM
Post #4 of 16
(1875 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2006
Posts: 2453
|
Eliminates have a long history, especially in the UK. They are very useful if you are limited to the number of routes you have access to, and IMO can make classic routes out of everyday warm-ups, if you find the right combination. Usually I'd say that eliminates where you avoid a hold on the line you are climbing aren't very satisfying. But if you can choose a direct line avoiding an arete or a feature to the left or right of the line that would make the line easier, then you have a climb that might breath new life into an old route. Sungam and I had a ton of fun this weekend working a direct line on a moderate at Pilot mountain, NC. Having climbed the path of least resistance 5.9 to the right of bolts, Magnus climbed the variation to the left of the bolts at around 5.11. All that remained was the direct line up the bolts avoiding the holds on the L and R routes. It turned out to be right out our limit, and for me, the challenge of a project is one of the best parts of climbing....
|
|
|
|
|
boadman
Dec 10, 2008, 8:36 PM
Post #5 of 16
(1854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
I think that the issue is that eliminates are always contrived. If, for instance, you were onsighting a route that was an eliminate, how would you know which holds you were allowed to grab? Should outdoor routes be taped so that we know? Outdoors, there are always harder, longer, and/or bolder routes. Rather than climb eliminates, it makes more sense to climb a weakness in the most straightforward way and then move on to a harder pitch somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Dec 10, 2008, 10:18 PM
Post #6 of 16
(1780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
Limey is rite, that was fun, but if I remember korektly, it wasn;t just a case of "grabbing the arete". It was more like grabbing a hold with the other hand and making a substantial move. I know of plenty of other routes that are not called eliminates that have this potential.
|
|
|
|
|
coolcat83
Dec 10, 2008, 11:32 PM
Post #7 of 16
(1727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2007
Posts: 1007
|
hafilax wrote: An 'eliminate' has more rules to follow. You can't just follow the line of weakness up the rock. It's adding an artificial difficulty. and I thought that originally a line was following the easiest or most obviously weakness up a rock face. in which case we wouldn't have most of the routes we do today, things like just follow the 5.2 stair climb instead of other harder routes on a face. most of the lines we do are contrived eliminates of one sort or another even if they happen to be at a high level.
|
|
|
|
|
jgill
Dec 11, 2008, 3:14 AM
Post #8 of 16
(1672 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2002
Posts: 653
|
Eliminates (on boulders) go back as far as the beginnings of rock climbing as a sport. See my website for more on this. If very few boulders are available, it makes sense to design such contrived challenges. For me - although others may disagree - there is a difference between a boulder route and a boulder problem: a route is a path from point A to point B, and a problem may be a sort of artificial path involving a required style or elimination of certain holds. But the point, already made, is that the sport allows considerable variety in philosophy, ethics, and style - do what you enjoy doing (without damaging the rock) and let others do as they see fit. Incidentally, the Brits coined both problem and bouldering, and originally problem meant any sort of line of difficulty, whether on a boulder or on a longer pitch.
|
|
|
|
|
Guran
Dec 11, 2008, 8:43 AM
Post #9 of 16
(1626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2008
Posts: 220
|
boadman wrote: I think that the issue is that eliminates are always contrived. If, for instance, you were onsighting a route that was an eliminate, how would you know which holds you were allowed to grab? Should outdoor routes be taped so that we know? Onsighting an eliminate... now that's kind of an oxymoron, don't you think? I'd say that "eliminiates" comes more from the bouldering mindset, where movement on the rock is the whole point and getting from A to B is completely irrelevant. Of course we look for a more fun or more challenging way to do something we've allready done. How we do that is a matter of scale really. An alpinist would try the other side of the mountain. A "regular" climber would try another path along the same face, or perhaps free an aid route. A boulderer would eliminate a hold, or try a sit-start. Spraying about summiting Denali from a sit-start would be silly.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Dec 11, 2008, 12:15 PM
Post #10 of 16
(1594 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
hafilax wrote: An 'eliminate' has more rules to follow. You can't just follow the line of weakness up the rock. It's adding an artificial difficulty. Yes, but eliminates can be very useful for training purposes, and sometimes they are just plain more fun. The problem comes in when someone creates and eliminate just to to tick a harder grade and the variation has no flow. There are many eliminates out there that feel silly and contrived as you climb it.
|
|
|
|
|
chetroy
Dec 11, 2008, 12:23 PM
Post #11 of 16
(1592 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2007
Posts: 26
|
Yo wraith Climbing is what you make of it, your own personal journey. Do what you like, whatever makes you happy. p.s. You had John gill answer your post. If you do not know who this is, you should really check his site. He is the man. You are livin in NY, ever hear of the Gill Egg peace
(This post was edited by chetroy on Dec 11, 2008, 12:28 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Dec 11, 2008, 3:50 PM
Post #12 of 16
(1525 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
granite_grrl wrote: The problem comes in when someone creates and eliminate just to to tick a harder grade and the variation has no flow. There are many eliminates out there that feel silly and contrived as you climb it. You got a problem with me and limey's stylez?
|
|
|
|
|
ACJ
Dec 12, 2008, 12:04 AM
Post #13 of 16
(1450 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2008
Posts: 162
|
I don't think of eliminates as necessarily a lesser feat, just less enjoyable for me. I've only climbed one eliminate and thought it was contrived and just forcing more routes into the cliff. The line was rated 10b and was sport. What really got to me about it was that it was between two cracks, easily protected on either side but the route instead said the cracks are off just climb the bolted face. Not to mention it takes away from the crack climb when you can just clip bolts the whole way...
|
|
|
|
|
mandrew123
Dec 12, 2008, 12:04 PM
Post #14 of 16
(1401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 26, 2007
Posts: 10
|
I came across this on his site and it seemed relevant...he wrote it on dec 1, 08 "The most eye popping moment for me though was seeing Steve McClure on Rhapsody - going left to the jugs on the left arête two moves before the redpoint crux, a link I did in August 2005 and considered finishing the route this way and making an E10. It was contrived to carry on direct following the crack right to the top, probably daft on my part, but that’s what all the fuss was about, and for me what made it scrape into E11. I thought hard about it and eventually felt it would a shame to take the escape just before the culmination of the route, and also saw when I tried to link it going direct that this route had the opportunity to make a really tough route – that’s what I was after. I paid for that decision with several more falls from the final move, a winter of worry and many nights of training, all the time knowing I could just traverse left from the sidepull for an easy option and still get an E10 tick. Only two last moves; but those are the moves that make you fall, as is obvious if you watch the film E11. It’s a shame that arête is there, and so the route I took has to have an eliminate rule. But at least the rule is super simple - don’t go to the left arête. I was glad Sonnie saw the significance of that. I got past that escape point on my second redpoint, same as Steve. I could have gone left, only had one small fall from the same place as Steve, and finished the project in 2005. But I wanted to make a hard route, so I went direct. All this is no problem in my mind, folk can and should climb whatever way they want on a cliff."
(This post was edited by mandrew123 on Dec 12, 2008, 12:06 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
greatgarbanzo
Dec 12, 2008, 2:14 PM
Post #15 of 16
(1383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2001
Posts: 360
|
In reply to: Isn't that why there are variations to routes and that those routes have different or slightly different names and grades? To my knowledge a <b>variation</b> is very different from an <b>eliminate</b>. The first usually consist in a totally different path that allows a totally different sequence (sometimes harder, sometimes easier) in a section of a climb. The later is more of a change in sequence obtained by skipping a hold or feature when, actually, is perfectly within reach. I think that the key phrase here is <i>...perfectly within reach.</i> If you choose not to use it but you can reach it, then is an <b>eliminate</b>. If you put yourself into a situation on which you can no longer reach the original then is a <b>variation</b> and it should be named and rated differently.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Dec 12, 2008, 5:55 PM
Post #16 of 16
(1354 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
And there you have it. Still a bad ass route!
|
|
|
|
|
|