|
alpnclmbr1
Jul 7, 2004, 11:11 PM
Post #126 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: As for beginners, PLEASE choose climbs based on the fall consequences, not the grade. Please choose climbs that will take a LOT of pro and then make sure you PLACE a lot of pro!!
Perhaps the most to the point advice in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 8, 2004, 1:11 AM
Post #127 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I will stick with my assertion that succeeding on a climb teaches you how to succeed and falling on the same climb teaches you how to fail. jt512 asserts that a climber who has failed 19 times on a climb and then succeded on the 20th attempt has "learned" more than a climber who succeeds on the first try. I disagree, except to the extent that the former hypothetical climber now knows 19 things that will not work.
Curt, what you are failing to take into account is why Climber A was able to do the move his first try, whereas Climber B had to try 20 different ways to do the move. Climber A already knew how to do the move. That's why he was able to do it the first time. Thus, he learned very little. Climber B, on the other hand, didn't have a clue about how to do the move, and had to learn it. In other words, with respect to this particular move, Climber A already knew more than Climber B. But in the end, wrt this move, Climber B's knowledge caught up to Climber A's. How much has Climber A improved as a result of this? Not much. He came to the move with more knowledge about it in the first place. How much did Climber B improve? A lot more: He learned how to do a move that he could not previously do.
You were a gymnast, weren't you, Curt? Did you learn every trick in a single attempt?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 8, 2004, 1:19 AM
Post #128 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: I will stick with my assertion that succeeding on a climb teaches you how to succeed and falling on the same climb teaches you how to fail. jt512 asserts that a climber who has failed 19 times on a climb and then succeded on the 20th attempt has "learned" more than a climber who succeeds on the first try. I disagree, except to the extent that the former hypothetical climber now knows 19 things that will not work. Curt, what you are failing to take into account is why Climber A was able to do the move his first try, whereas Climber B had to try 20 different ways to do the move. Climber A already knew how to do the move. That's why he was able to do it the first time. Thus, he learned very little.
This is, in part, where we disagree. You assert that a climber who was able to do a climb on his first try knew how to do it beforehand. I claim that he was without this prior knowledge you claim--but able to figure it out on his first try.
In reply to: Climber B, on the other hand, didn't have a clue about how to do the move, and had to learn it. In other words, with respect to this particular move, Climber A already knew more than Climber B. But in the end, wrt this move, Climber B's knowledge caught up to Climber A's. How much has Climber A improved as a result of this? Not much. He came to the move with more knowledge about it in the first place. How much did Climber B improve? A lot more: He learned how to do a move that he could not previously do.
See my reply to the first part of this post. I claim that, in the final analysis, they both "learned" the same thing. The guy doing it on the first attempt merely learned it faster.
In reply to: You were a gymnast, weren't you, Curt? Did you learn every trick in a single attempt? -Jay
Yes, I was. But, gymnastics has virtually zero problem solving involved, except at the Olympic level where you are creating new moves. All the beta is there in the F.I.G. handbook--and the coaches will instruct you on how to best perform any trick.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 8, 2004, 1:22 AM
Post #129 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: How much has Climber A improved as a result of this? Not much.
Maybe Climber A is smarter, stronger, react quickly, has been climbing longer and is cool like Curt :D .
What if Climber B is fat, slow, weak and a d-ass like ...
What if Climber A climbed up to the crux and down 19 times (without falling) and then sent it. Who learned more, A or B????
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 8, 2004, 1:38 AM
Post #130 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: He came to the move with more knowledge about it in the first place.
No, maybe climber B has more experience/knowledge and climber A could just process the moves much quicker.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 8, 2004, 1:42 AM
Post #131 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: How much has Climber A improved as a result of this? Not much. Maybe Climber A is smarter, stronger, react quickly, has been climbing longer and is cool like Curt :D . What if Climber B is fat, slow, weak and a d-ass like ... What if Climber A climbed up to the crux and down 19 times (without falling) and then sent it. Who learned more, A or B????
Good point. In your scenario, I would still say the two climbers "learned" the same thing. Climber "A" did not learn anything additional from downclimbing 19 times--any more than did climber "B" from falling 19 times.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
squish
Jul 8, 2004, 2:25 AM
Post #132 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 470
|
In reply to: ...the only way I get that creamy feeling is with My Girl.
Who's got the FA... Oh, wait. Never mind. I get it now.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Jul 8, 2004, 2:35 AM
Post #133 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: In reply to: ...the only way I get that creamy feeling is with My Girl. What grade is this "My Girl" you speak of? Who's got the FA... Oh, wait. Never mind. I get it now.
My Girl is, strictly speaking, closed to all others. You could say this one is in a guarded secret area. The grade is just right for ME. Maybe My Girl has been climbed before, but My Girl is so well suited to my style, that no one else could ever do My Girl justice.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 8, 2004, 3:38 AM
Post #134 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: He came to the move with more knowledge about it in the first place. No, maybe climber B has more experience/knowledge and climber A could just process the moves much quicker.
I'm defining "knowledge" more broadly. Call it knowledge, ability, skill, whatever. The fact that B couldn't do the move the first time but A could means that B was the worse climber at that moment than A. B could either go home and come back to the route when he was able to send it (learning the move in some less efficient manner), or he could work the move right then and then there until he learned it. Climber A was clearly the better climber with respect to this particular situation, since he got the move on his first try (unless, I supose, he just lucked out). By working the move, B adds a new move to his repertoire; a move which A already had pat, a move that was easy for A. This is so obvious that I cannot believe that anyone would argue otherwise. This is the manner of learning in every other human endeavor. Only in climbing, at one time, due to some arbitrary notion of it being poor style to try a move again after hanging on the rope, was the obvious tactic of doing so eschewed in favor of retreating to the ground. Lynn Hill had the guts to say the obvious: that this was nuts. If you blow a move and fall, and you lower, instead of sticking around and learning the move, you have missed a learning opportunity. How hard is this to comprehend?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 8, 2004, 3:44 AM
Post #135 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Good point. In your scenario, I would still say the two climbers "learned" the same thing. Climber "A" did not learn anything additional from downclimbing 19 times--any more than did climber "B" from falling 19 times. Curt
Curt, they may have learned the same "thing," ie, the move, but they did not learn the same amount. Climber B had a lot more to learn than Climber A.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
squish
Jul 8, 2004, 3:49 AM
Post #136 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 470
|
Curt, I don't get your argument.
If any given climber has the luxury of choosing to succeed on the first try, instead of having to take chances at failure in order to succeed, I would conclude that he isn't climbing at his limit.
Is that your point? That we can progress faster by climbing things we know to succeed on, first try? Ergo, by not climbing at our limit? Unless I'm reading you wrong, that makes no sense to me -- especially coming from a boulderer!
Let's say that climbing "at" your limit means that you fall roughly 50% of the time: a nice number for a threshold. Success feels close -- like a second try might do it. If you get it on the second try (one failure, one success), then why couldn't you get it on the first try, if not for having learned something?
The original question was about not falling while learning at the lower grades, and I think that's different from pushing through your limits higher on, after having learned the arts of protection and general climbing common-sense.
When you first learned to climb, you didn't jump right onto the sharp end. If so, that would be the exception these days. You probably top-roped, like I did. In top-roping, you don't really fall, but the result is the same: You hang. You try again. You learn.
Oh, and the climber who failed 19 times? Well, by now he's figured out that he's working beyond his limit. By having given it some solid effort (and failed), he can determine whether success is getting any closer (making progress and learning), or it's still too far out of his league (not learning a damn thing).
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Jul 8, 2004, 4:02 AM
Post #137 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: How hard is this to comprehend?
Maybe your Climber A and some of us are Climber B types. Does that mean I will learn and know more in the long-run?
Jay, I am just kidding around in these posts. Not so serious!
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jul 8, 2004, 4:32 AM
Post #138 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: If you blow a move and fall, and you lower, instead of sticking around and learning the move, you have missed a learning opportunity.
First half of the thread, you work on falling, now your working on hanging. Methodical as hell.
How is trying a move again from a hang different from trying it from the ground? If you try the route again you are not missing anything, for that matter you learn more by climbing more of the climb again.
Working the move on a hang is more efficient for learning how to do that move. That is all.
The goal is to learn how to climb the route.
You learn how to climb the route by climbing it.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jul 8, 2004, 4:35 AM
Post #139 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*How is trying a move again from a hang different from trying it from the ground?*
pssst...log off now you are embarrassing yourself I am serious
wow
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jul 8, 2004, 4:41 AM
Post #140 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: *How is trying a move again from a hang different from trying it from the ground?* pssst...log off now you are embarrassing yourself I am serious wow
Your a funny guy joe.
You "learn more" from trying a move on hang instead of from the ground? How so?
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jul 8, 2004, 4:51 AM
Post #141 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
I'm not sure there is much I can add that hasn't been said. My original quote seems a bit like an ink blot in a Rorshach test: what people see in it corresponds to what is in their head more than to anything in the objective content of the blot.
Several people have said it, but I'm going to repeat that my comment was aimed at a climber who was attempting to work his way through moderate climbing grades by going for it and falling. I suggested, in the genuine spirit of helping someone to stay alive, that this was a bad idea. If I evoked the image of woolen knicker clad oldsters paddling their way up 5.7's with a hemp rope tied around their waist, it was not to celebrate such approaches nor to invest them with some old-school superiority, it was merely to point out that it is quite possible to reach a certain, nowadays rather modest, level of skill without a damn the torpedos full speed ahead charge up the rock, hoping that modern gear will save your butt when your forearms give out.
Having achieved that currently modest level, which I put at under 5.10, I think a climber is in a position to decide what kinds of activities give him or her the most pleasure and what kinds of approaches confer a feeling of success. Hopefully, they will have a base of procedures that will allow them to make good judgements about risk, see all the alternatives that are actually before them, and choose in a way that gives them the pleasure of enjoying another day in the mountains. They have the option of embracing or rejecting any of the various climbing styles that are currently used on difficult routes, and I cannot think of any reason to pass judgement on anyone for the style they choose, as long as they do not report their achievements as the result of some other style.
It is obvious that the various techniques of working a route are essential for achieving modern levels of difficulty. Furthermore, the whining of greybeard tradsters notwithstanding, the roots of modern approaches go a good thirty years back, perhaps quite a bit more if we attend to John Gill's quote from Dave Rearick. And finally, as Bob D. pointed out, those who have conditioned themselves in the course of working hard routes are quite likely to be better at strictly trad climbing than those who have eschewed such practices. It is the revenge of the "cheaters" to outdo the "purists" at their own game, and it is a phenomenom that has characterized the passing of every climbing generation. This is the essence of progress, and to refuse to celebrate it is to forget the details of your own history, something we old guys are fond of doing when we try to rationalize why we can't keep up with the youngsters.
So please don't ask me what I think of Lynn Hill hangdogging Vandals, as if this issue is a consequence of anything I've said. I have no position on this question, and for good reason---it's none of my business or anyone else's business. The only thing that matters (if indeed it is sensible to speak of anything as silly as the style in which you achieved an ascent as mattering) is what Lynn Hill thinks, and we already have her answer.
To quote Rich Gottlieb at Rock and Snow, "it's all climbing, and it's all good." To which I would add, "as long as you don't die," returning now to the spirit of my original post.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jul 8, 2004, 5:10 AM
Post #142 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
* And finally, as Bob D. pointed out, those who have conditioned themselves in the course of working hard routes are quite likely to be better at strictly trad climbing than those who have eschewed such practices. It is the revenge of the "cheaters" to outdo the "purists" at their own game, and it is a phenomenom that has characterized the passing of every climbing generation. This is the essence of progress, and to refuse to celebrate it is to forget the details of your own history, something we old guys are fond of doing when we try to rationalize why we can't keep up with the youngsters.*
The obvious and correct interpretation of climbing history, yet seemingly beyond the grasp of others (are you listening Curt) whose dogma clouds their judgement. Sadly the current generation has no interest in climbing history and is more focused on who makes the best foam pads...
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 8, 2004, 5:26 AM
Post #143 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: * And finally, as Bob D. pointed out, those who have conditioned themselves in the course of working hard routes are quite likely to be better at strictly trad climbing than those who have eschewed such practices. It is the revenge of the "cheaters" to outdo the "purists" at their own game, and it is a phenomenom that has characterized the passing of every climbing generation. This is the essence of progress, and to refuse to celebrate it is to forget the details of your own history, something we old guys are fond of doing when we try to rationalize why we can't keep up with the youngsters.* The obvious and correct interpretation of climbing history, yet seemingly beyond the grasp of others (are you listening Curt) whose dogma clouds their judgement. Sadly the current generation has no interest in climbing history and is more focused on who makes the best foam pads...
First of all Joe, for God's sake, please learn how to properly quote someone here. I have absolutely no doubt that "working hard routes" (i.e. sport climbing or cheating) can make someone strictly better at trad climbing as Rich asserts. I have exactly as much respect for these people as those who similarly use steroids, use blood doping, use hold chipping or any other nefarious means to succeed. Good for you for becoming the lowest common denominator--you cheat. But, one important point is missing in your case, you do not climb real rock climbs harder as a result. You still suck.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jul 8, 2004, 5:32 AM
Post #144 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*I have exactly as much respect for these people as those who similarly use steroids, use blood doping, use hold chipping or any other nefarious means to succeed.*
or sticky rubber, or spring loaded cams, or perlon ropes...
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 8, 2004, 6:28 AM
Post #145 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: *I have exactly as much respect for these people as those who similarly use steroids, use blood doping, use hold chipping or any other nefarious means to succeed.* or sticky rubber, or spring loaded cams, or perlon ropes...
Shazzam Joe, good call. You don't need any of those things to boulder harder.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Jul 8, 2004, 6:37 AM
Post #146 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*Shazzam Joe, good call. You don't need any of those things to boulder harder.*
hahaha
you poor thing...
g'nite
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 8, 2004, 6:51 AM
Post #147 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: *Shazzam Joe, good call. You don't need any of those things to boulder harder.* hahaha you poor thing... g'nite
g'nite Joe. Sweet dreams, don't let reality bite.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 8, 2004, 5:52 PM
Post #148 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: How hard is this to comprehend? Maybe your Climber A and some of us are Climber B types. Does that mean I will learn and know more in the long-run? Jay, I am just kidding around in these posts. Not so serious!
Sorry. It was the end of a long and frustrating day, trying to get a program to do what it is supposed to do. I've isolated the problematic section of the code, though Curt would have me re-write the program from the beginning.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 8, 2004, 6:00 PM
Post #149 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: If you blow a move and fall, and you lower, instead of sticking around and learning the move, you have missed a learning opportunity. How is trying a move again from a hang different from trying it from the ground?
Efficiency, obviously.
In reply to: If you try the route again you are not missing anything, for that matter you learn more by climbing more of the climb again.
Spending your time and energy working the part of the route you can already do is inefficient.
In reply to: Working the move on a hang is more efficient for learning how to do that move. That is all.
If that's the part of the route you need to work on, then it is also the more efficint way to redpoint the route.
In reply to: The goal is to learn how to climb the route. You learn how to climb the route by climbing it.
Except that it is more efficient to spend more time on the parts you can't do than the parts you already can. As you have redpointed 5.13's I would think that you would already have figured this out. Do you actually lower to the ground every time you fall?
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 8, 2004, 6:10 PM
Post #150 of 202
(9222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I have absolutely no doubt that "working hard routes" (i.e. sport climbing or cheating) can make someone strictly better at trad climbing as Rich asserts. I have exactly as much respect for these people as those who similarly use steroids, use blood doping, use hold chipping or any other nefarious means to succeed.
Sport climbing is "cheating?" You'll have to remind me what page of the rule book that is in. Oh, wait, there is no rule book. Fair enough, then it must be cheating because that is the consensus of the climbing community, except that Curt seems to be the only remaining member of the climbing community to consider it so.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
