Who cares? Its just bouldering. bouldering alone is lame.

Then there is John Gill......the one responsible for bouldering as we know it. Had he not come along you would be climbing trad right now.

This is a bit off topic but I wonder why we havn't seen a really strong boulderer who is really tall. I'm talking 6'4 and up. The only one I can think of who was really big was Holloway and I would argue that this definitely gave him an advantage on some of his problems in Boulder. Just curious what your thoughts would be. Imagine a gym bred youngster (16-20) at around 6'6". That combo could produce new lines way above anything out there.

The best boulderer is the one who never boulders.

Well, if you "follow 10b sport" as your profile suggests, bouldering probably ain't for you.

Curt

Funny how all incredibly weak climbers say that.

Curt

No, I just think bouldering is practice for roping up. If all you do is boulder, then you’re missing the point of climbing. Going places on a rock wall that has a sense of commitment to get there is part of the fun of climbing. Not just “how hard can you pull”. That is the ego part of it. Don’t get me wrong. I have had some really great experiences bouldering, but roping up and climbing more than 25 feet Is were its at.

Ah, the true "point of climbing"....thanks for clearing that up.

d.

you are welcome.

I love it when sarcasm misses its intended target. So please, do tell us the point of climbing, since obviously everybody climbs for the exact same reason.

since obviously everybody climbs for the exact same reason.

You and I dont climb for the "exact same reason". I am willing to bet its a totaly different reason.

If you boulder exclusively, chances are you are very lazy. Most boulderers are. Strong as shit. But lazy.

This thread should be called the most popular boulderer.

No, I just think bouldering is practice for roping up. If all you do is boulder, then you’re missing the point of climbing. Going places on a rock wall that has a sense of commitment to get there is part of the fun of climbing. Not just “how hard can you pull”. That is the ego part of it. Don’t get me wrong. I have had some really great experiences bouldering, but roping up and climbing more than 25 feet Is were its at.

Why is it that whenever a bouldering topic comes up some wanker from out in lala land always feels the need to bash bouldering its self.

When I do not agree with something i do not bash it, it is just a diffrent view, thats life. So boulders have an ego thing huh? well I guess yours is so large these tiny boulders can not give you want you want. Might as well try and fill your ego on the larger rocks then, huh? And bouldering is more than just pulling hard...

I some good friends who do nothing but boulder. I personally think they are wasting talent on pebble pinching. They blatantly state they don’t have to bring as much stuff to the rock (or in there mind) pebble. This to me is LAZY. Bouldering is growing fad. That’s all it is. A fad.
What do I care. Keeps more people off the routes. Good for me. And yes I have a ego. Just like you do. And all the rest of the posting posers who check this site all the time and write in all there little opinions all the time about why you and I are full of shit. Blah, blah, blah. In the end, it all does not matter. Go..... have fun boudering or roping up. Either way enjoy what you do for its fullest. Just make sure you see Yosemite at least once in your climbing life. Even if you dont put a rope on.

Have a merry X-mas

People who can't pull hard often feel this way.

Typical cop-out answer, you must me new.

Must be new? eh...

Typical wankery answer; you must get burned off your area warmups.

Heres to going crazy on a rest day,

The best boulderer is the one who never boulders.

so is it shampoo, or coditioner?

water or gatorade?

climb (klîm)
v. climbed, climb·ing, climbs
v. tr.

1. To move upward on or mount, especially by using the hands and feet or the feet alone; ascend: climb a mountain; climbed the stairs.
2. To grow in an upward direction on or over: ivy climbing the walls.

v. intr.

1. To move oneself upward, especially by using the hands and feet.
2. To rise slowly, steadily, or effortfully; ascend. See Synonyms at rise.


thought i might post the definition of "climbing" to anyone who might have forgot.

Jason Kehl is my favorite. Not the best. Just my favorite.

You can shorten that definition alot

Climb = To accend.

You can shorten that definition alot

Climb = To accend.

Holy Jeebus, who really cares?

...Who F#$%^ cares. Its just bouldering. It doesnt really count.

Funny how all incredibly weak climbers say that.

Curt

That is what I have been trying to say all along.

Who F#$%^ cares. Its just bouldering. It doesnt really count.

Dai Koyamada...the wheel of life. 60 moves, possible v16.

....maybe

That is what I have been trying to say all along.

Who F#$%^ cares. Its just bouldering. It doesnt really count.

That is what I have been trying to say all along.

Who F#$%^ cares. Its just bouldering. It doesnt really count.

...Holloway was extremely tall and his problems that have held their difficulty are just really long reaches. They are certainly hard, but are very specialized...

60 moves is not a boulder problem. He should have called it 5.15 or something.

Incoherent nonsense.

Facts are often incoherent to those with limited intellectual capacity. pfffft

It's good to see you don't let facts interfere with your erroneous assumptions. You should fit right in around here. The fact is that only one of Holloway's three unrepeated problems (Slapshot) involves a long reach.

Curt

[IMG]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/GSampson/Teasing/Thread-Crap-Graph.jpg[/IMG]

I do love all the rampant sarcasm.

What are the other two unrepeated problems Curt? Hollows Way? That's not a reach problem? Anyway, your missing the point as usual. The thread is titled "best boulderer ever."

While its good to see you don't let facts interfere with your pinings for yesteryear, the fact is Holloway did a few obscure hard problems in his local area, thats it. That does not even put him in the running as the best boulderer ever...

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.

I suppose you can find some consolation in the fact that many other people also misuse the term bouldering on a regular basis.

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.

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.

...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...

That's about the best argument you have and it is still idiotic. The inventor of modern bouldering (Gill) says that boulder problems are short, hard problems. You can call The Rostrum in Yosemite a boulder problem for all I care and although it may be to Peter Croft, you'd still be talking out of your ass. Also, it is not "an emprircal question" of whether or not "V" grades have been used to rate very long boulder problems--if that has been done incorrectly, as the very inventor of the "V" system himself claims.

However, rather than argue my point any farther, I'll just let you believe that you know better about bouldering than Gill, Sherman, myself or anyone else. Enjoy your little fantasy world.

p.s. your ignorance is proven by the statement that "Gill" is the inventor of modern bouldering. Typical myopic colorado bullshit. Uh, the first bouldering guidebook for Fontainbleau came out in like 1942? Sorry to burst your little bubble buddy.

stupid french are too busy bouldering to free them selves from the nazi's. sad.

Your claim that he has more "unrepeated problems than anyone in history" is based on what exactly? Almost all of his problems are in or around Boulder, which I am sure you think is the center of the universe, but hey, guess what, there is a big wide world out there Curt! And on the world scale, some random off the map areas around Boulder with a couple of unrepeated Holloway problems makes those problems "obscure." Are they at destination areas like Hueco, Bishop, Font, the Grit? no. Which means the real question is, how many of the top boulderers in the world have actually traveled to these areas and tried to repeat these problems? Uh, likely none? Exactly.

I suspect you have never really climbed much outside of your little world and thus have no perspective on which to base your claims. Try and lose the angry old man thing and get out more.

p.s. your ignorance is proven by the statement that "Gill" is the inventor of modern bouldering. Typical myopic colorado bullshit. Uh, the first bouldering guidebook for Fontainbleau came out in like 1942? Sorry to burst your little bubble buddy.

So look: If you want to hold your thinking on climbing to that sort of standard, that's your prerogative. But don't expect to convince those of us who require reasons for our opinions or beliefs.

I see. So, if some people incorrectly applied the "V" scale to very long boulder problems in the past, that somehow proves your point?

http://www128.pair.com/...ring_History1.0.html

Curt

"Incorrectly?" Quit assuming your conclusion, Curt.

(And I like how you just inadvertently referred to these long problems as "boulder problems". Classic.)

Just for starters, Ben Moon and Jerry Mofatt (in their prime) both tried and failed to repeat at least a couple of Holloway's test-piece problems--plus a ton of other talented boulderers. According to you, though, they must be "no one."

You suspect wrong. And, if you think you can keep up with me bouldering, I'll be happy to prove you wrong twice.

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your completely undeserved arrogance. You know little to nothing about the origins of bouldering. Modern bouldering has a specific meaning beyond merely scrambling around on boulders up to a 5.10 or so level. Why I bother trying to educate total fucktards like you is beyond me. However, read this and perhaps you'll learn something. I doubt it though, you don't seem so inclined.

Fracture, Curt, it is incredibly simple. Some routes/problems base their difficulty rating on endurance, others on the single hardest move. DUH.

When Curt uses the term "modern bouldering," he is talking about Gill's original intent in doing the SINGLE HARDEST MOVES on rock.

Both the YDS and V-scale were originally intended to grade the SINGLE HARDEST MOVE. Both have since been used to grade endurance. It is apples and oranges.

I suspect that Fracture's main beef in this argument is based upon the fact that he and most other Texas spurt climbers spend their time ruthlessly wiring two move sequences at Reimers so that they can say they climb 5.13, but then get shut down on the same rating at Rifle, the Red, and other endurance crags.

OK, so Ben and Jerry tried and failed on Holloway's problems (what, like in the 80's?). But how long did they try them? Could they have been having a bad day? Were the conditions good? Were they the reachy ones? This point still doesn't refute the fact that Hollaway's unrepeated problems are few, are not in a destination area and therefore are rarely tried by the world's best boulderers today, and it still does not prove that Holloway was the "Best boulderer ever." You still have yet to name all of these supposed unrepeated problems that you are masterbating over. Focus, Curt!

That's laughable Curt. I don't "think" I could "keep up with you", I "know" I could "school" you.

In case you haven't yet climbed the grade, V5 is not "5.10 level scrambling." Furthermore, just because Gill introduced chalk (the bleausards were already using rosin) and made more dynamic moves than the euros doesn't mean he invented "modern bouldering."

A word always means what most native speakers think it means. Period.

I hope you never set foot in a courtroom...

I hope you never read anything about the science of linguistics. The realization that you are an ignorant moron might have the type of ego-shattering repercussions that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Pebble wrestling is dumb.

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....