|
|
Forums:
Climbing Disciplines:
Bouldering:
Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever:
Edit Log
|
|
fracture
Mar 14, 2007, 3:55 AM
Views: 4363
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
curt wrote: fracture wrote: How about these facts: Climbing without a rope near the ground is described with the word "bouldering", regardless of how many moves there are. (This is an empirical claim about the English language, and I dare you to disagree with it on a public forum.)Most people don't understand the factual meaning of the word redundant either.
Assuming you're not talking about people who don't even speak English, that's simply an impossible claim. A word always means what most native speakers think it means. Period.
Please, go buy a book on linguistics, Curt, before you further embarrass yourself by spewing any more unscientific bullshit.
In reply to: I suppose you can find some consolation in the fact that many other people also misuse the term bouldering on a regular basis.
You simply have no clue what you are talking about. Linguistics is an empirical science, Curt. And claims about the meaning of the word "bouldering" are linguistic claims. You can't just make shit up, okay?
And when you admit that "many other people" use the term in the way I am describing, you are basically admitting that I am correct. Either "bouldering" doesn't mean what you are claiming it means, or there are multiple (possibly contradictory) senses of the word in active use (which is the norm for climbing terminology).
In reply to: fracture wrote: V-grades have been applied to problems even longer than Wheel of Life since their introduction in Hueco Tanks. (The 135' V8 at the Gymnasium.)We have been over this ground before. Sherman, himself, admits that applying a "V" rating to very long sequences of moves (like Burn, Baby, Burn) was a mistake on his part.
Your typical response on this front: an irrelevant Appeal to Authority (though at least this time you left out the insults).
What Sherman thinks is as irrelevant as what you think: whether the V-grade system is applied to long problems is an empirical question. And Burn, Baby, Burn offers an existence-proof that is (along with several other problems I can name, including a number of local ones). You can continue to deny it, but you're arguing against reality, not against me.
Now, you could consider admitting that what I said is simply a fact---that the V-scale is and has been successfully used on long problems---and then arguing that it shouldn't be the case. But then, we'd still be waiting for a coherent argument on that front. (And I've been discussing this with you ever since Wheel of Life was put up without ever seeing you produce a single one!)
You can start by telling us in what way the V-scale and the YDS are fundamentally different. Because, if they are (and I think it is painfully apparent that they are not), then it is obviously not due to the length of climbing that they have been applied to. (cf. the facts I've enumerated.)
In reply to: fracture wrote: The YDS was also applied to boulder problems for many years before that.Before bouldering became a more or less seperate activity, that was perhaps the case in some areas--because that is all people were familiar with. If the YDS would have been suitable for rating boulder problems (i.e. short sequences of very hard moves) there would have been no need for any of the bouldering ratings scales to have emerged. But, I suspect you know that.
But, the YDS is suitable for rating boulder problems, as evidenced by the fact that it was once successfully used for it! Not to mention the thousands of one-move-wonder sport routes found at crags across the country (i.e. "short sequences of very hard moves").
The V-scale was an unnecessary invention (although it lacks some of the historical baggage and could therefore arguably be considered more elegant). But it certainly doesn't really hurt anything; there's already a plethora of rating systems of this same type out there (YDS, Hueco, French, Font, Aussie, UIAA, etc.). Any cumulative (aka, not "hardest move"), difficulty-only (aka, danger is irrelevant) grading system is the same: the only difference is where each "notch" in the scale is located, and how they are spelled.
And please try to make some sort of (non-fallacious) argument in your next post. I'd really find it much more entertaining than this crap, which is just way too easy.
(This post was edited by fracture on Mar 14, 2007, 4:29 AM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 14, 2007, 4:00 AM
|
|
Post edited by fracture
() on Mar 14, 2007, 4:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
