|
|
Forums:
Climbing Disciplines:
Bouldering:
Re: [jt512] Best Boulderer Ever:
Edit Log
|
|
fracture
Mar 29, 2007, 1:30 AM
Views: 3385
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
jt512 wrote: miavzero wrote: excuse me for being a simpleton, but why can't we just be satisfied with the rating systems that we have? Is it really that intolerable to face the fact that we cannot always do climbs of comparable number/letter ratings? What kind of point are all of you talking heads trying to make? My point was only that it would make more sense to rate long, traversing boulder problems on the YDS scale than the V-scale, because, in terms of difficulty, a long, traversing bouldering problem will likely have more in common with a sport route than a short boulder problem.
You seem to have missed that this is area-relative. In my area, it is flat false. In many areas, it is only slightly/technically true: yes, it is probably "more likely", but I dispute that it is frequently to a very large degree, since routes (even long ones!) with primarily power and power-endurance challenges are very common.
In reply to: The reason that this simple and obvious point has become so confusing is that fracture has somehow reasoned: [..] That more accurate information about a route's difficulty is less useful than less accurate information.
Information relevant to the route's difficulty that I think would not be useful to have in the route's rating includes: wall angle(s), hold type(s), energy-production system(s) used, longest possible fall distance, difficulty of each clip, number of moves, height of wall, enumeration of any jamming-techniques required, number of dynos, number of figure fours, number of drop knees, ....
Now, tell me you don't agree with at least some of that. More information is not always better, and you have yet to give an argument about why you think the alleged additional information provided by your proposal* provides an increase in the utility of these systems.
* Which, by the way, is still somewhat unclear. The post I'm replying to seems to suggest that you are (to my astonishment!) only saying that long boulder problems should be re-rated. If this is true, unfortunately it would appear that you are arguing for an application of these scales that remains arbitrarily dependent on the protection-system, which I'm afraid you won't ever get me on board with (in the context of gymnastic climbing).
(This post was edited by fracture on Mar 29, 2007, 3:14 AM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 29, 2007, 1:32 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 29, 2007, 1:34 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 29, 2007, 3:14 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
