I climb what I climb and don't worry about what others do.
33 /
58%
If only I could climb as hard as (insert name) maybe my mommy would love me.
6 /
11%
If only my mommy would have loved me, maybe I could climb as hard as (insert name).
7 /
12%
I like pointing it out if someone else climbs at a lower number than I do because (fill in the blank).
5 /
9%
I climb at a softly rated place where my 5.12 is 5.9 in other places, but tend ignore that bit of information when comparing myself to others. A number is a number, dammit!
What exactly does it mean to chase someone else's numbers?
If every elite climber in the world is trying to repeat Chris Sharma's best sends, are they chasing his numbers? I didn't realize that a handful of people who repeated Realization looked stupid as a result of it.
And on the less than elite levels, how do you make a distinction between those people who are chasing someone else's numbers, and people pushing to improve their climbing ability because they want to, not because of anyone else, just for themselves?
(This post was edited by lena_chita on Feb 1, 2008, 4:47 PM)
Does anyone not realize that when they don't try to improve, they wallow in mediocrity?
Chill, maybe mediocrity (i.e. fun 5.10 climbing) is part of me enjoying the experience of the process, and my way of improvement, not just a number on my tick list...
chill41 wrote:
It's cliche but making improvements and fully enjoying and experiencing the process is what it's all about.
I climb to challenge myself physically and mentally. I like to climb with others who have the same goals (mostly of having fun) without having to compare myself to anybody. Comparison takes all the fun out of climbing for me!
You only look foolish if you can't do it but persist in trying, imo. OK that's probably not the only time it looks foolish.
But without competition I would dare say NONE of us would be climbers now. You'd have a few hippys, deadbeats, mentally ill or socially disturbed folks doing it, and John Gill would be a mythical character in an Dingus Rand book - Who is John Gill?
Us posers owe EVERYTHING we know about this sport to the spirit of competition. The very foundations of alpinism and mountain climbing and all its offshoots, were based on the desire to compete.
The harder grades were all solidified through competition. You cannot take the competition out of climbing because you can't take competition out of the hearts of men and women.
I voted for the first one, but that doesn't tell the whole truth. I think when people try to demoralize someone or put themselves on a pedestal because they climb harder, that's when they look foolish. But, if you study other climbers to get better, part of that is comparing yourself to them. If I look at so and so, and say, "Man, she has great technique. I want that!", then i can use that comparison to my advantage. I can watch and study and try to replicate it to make me a better climber.
You only look foolish if you can't do it but persist in trying, imo. OK that's probably not the only time it looks foolish.
But without competition I would dare say NONE of us would be climbers now. You'd have a few hippys, deadbeats, mentally ill or socially disturbed folks doing it, and John Gill would be a mythical character in an Dingus Rand book - Who is John Gill?
Us posers owe EVERYTHING we know about this sport to the spirit of competition. The very foundations of alpinism and mountain climbing and all its offshoots, were based on the desire to compete.
The harder grades were all solidified through competition. You cannot take the competition out of climbing because you can't take competition out of the hearts of men and women.
CANNOT BE DONE.
DMT
But is the advancement of the sport from competing with others, or is it from the competition with ones self. I believe its a little of both, with maybe individual competition making the larger strides.
I've competed against others in a lot of other sports, diving, swimming, basketball, gymnastics, but in rock climbing I've only competed against myself.
You only look foolish if you can't do it but persist in trying, imo. OK that's probably not the only time it looks foolish.
But without competition I would dare say NONE of us would be climbers now. You'd have a few hippys, deadbeats, mentally ill or socially disturbed folks doing it, and John Gill would be a mythical character in an Dingus Rand book - Who is John Gill?
Us posers owe EVERYTHING we know about this sport to the spirit of competition. The very foundations of alpinism and mountain climbing and all its offshoots, were based on the desire to compete.
The harder grades were all solidified through competition. You cannot take the competition out of climbing because you can't take competition out of the hearts of men and women.
CANNOT BE DONE.
DMT
Hell yeah dingus, well said. Humans are social creatures, it's impossible to not compare yourself. Knowing about all the rad stuff the hardmen and hardwomen are doing out there should motivate us all to keep pushing it just as they are, not feel belittled.
Another aspect of numbers, is actually how much I respect another climbers opinion when it comes to climbing. This number includes years in the game though too.
If you've only been climbing a year, or if you only climb 5.4, your opinion about climbing doesn't matters to me one bit. If you've got no investment in climbing, your thoughts on style, ethics, access, etc. don't hold any water with me.
This isn't an absolute scale, but there does seem to be some threshold for numbers and years necessary before I consider an opinion valid.
And I don't think it is just elitism. It just translates to not being a well rounded climber with enough mileage on the rock.
You only look foolish if you can't do it but persist in trying, imo. OK that's probably not the only time it looks foolish.
But without competition I would dare say NONE of us would be climbers now. You'd have a few hippys, deadbeats, mentally ill or socially disturbed folks doing it, and John Gill would be a mythical character in an Dingus Rand book - Who is John Gill?
Us posers owe EVERYTHING we know about this sport to the spirit of competition. The very foundations of alpinism and mountain climbing and all its offshoots, were based on the desire to compete.
The harder grades were all solidified through competition. You cannot take the competition out of climbing because you can't take competition out of the hearts of men and women.
CANNOT BE DONE.
DMT
But is the advancement of the sport from competing with others, or is it from the competition with ones self. I believe its a little of both, with maybe individual competition making the larger strides.
I've competed against others in a lot of other sports, diving, swimming, basketball, gymnastics, but in rock climbing I've only competed against myself.
Hmmm, if we are only competing with ourselves there is little reason for all the rating shades of gray (10d, 11b, 13c, etc.).
I'd say competition with others IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN the driving force in the sport. I pretty much dismiss the 'I only compete with myself' notion as merely another way to compete with other climbers.
To chillidude - progressing is a natrual thing and a beauty to behold and experience. We should all do it to the best of our abilities - but there are phases in ANY climbing career.
I submit that just as with the economy, any expectation of endless improvement will be met with frustration and ultimate denial.
At some point you will have passed your highwate mark. What then? Faced with the long (or short) decline, do you just walk away?
I think we need balance - its great to compete, go for it! Its great to get better, get stronger, get smarter.... its freakin awesome!
Its also great to take cruiser climbs and smell the roses - at any age I think.
So hellyeah, COMPETE. Enter some comps if you want. Puff your chests out when Joe Hardboy struts by, trip him up if you desire!
But don't forget to jump on some fun crusier climbs too, and enjoy some of the other aspects of this great sport.
Or don't! I guess it doesn't really matter what you do.
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Feb 1, 2008, 5:22 PM)
So true.. Even though ppl dont want to admit it, competition and numbers are probably the two biggest forces in improving our climbing. I dont think anyone in this forum can truly say that they have never been inspired to climb a certain grade or do better then someone.. Its not negative, its just the way it is. I compete with others all the time and like climbing routes with big numbers.. of course mainly for the personal challenge, but at the same time the big grade or knowing that I did better then XX helps as well.
Its all comes down to what your goals are in climbing.. if they are purely recreational and for fun, then you probably dont care about competition and numbers. Hobby climbing. People that climb to get stronger and as a sport do care about those things. If not, props..
First, let me proudly admit that I'd get a kick out of going somewhere where all of the 12's were no harder than Yosemite 9. It's like going to the beauty shop...It's nice to get treated like I look good on my way out the door whether I do or not.
That said...as much fun as it is to onsight number grades higher than my norm on 90 foot, rappable climbs at Indian Creek, I don't kid myself about how "easy" my usual fare is when the penalties are higher for misplaced hubris.
Personally, I find the high commitment, lower grade stuff to be harder. Perhaps when I'm older and have more experience but but less ammo in the guns, I'll think the opposite.
I'd say presently I'd have even odds of onsighting my ultimate IC goal (5.hard, 150 ft.) and my ultimate Yosemite Goal (old skool 5.9, grade V). I've trained a whole lot more for the Grade V though. It's like the difference between being able to fake out a native speaker of Spanish w/ one perfectly articulated sentence (mastering a high-grade size at IC) vs. being able read 100 Years of Solitude w/o a dictionary.
Calling someone else's project "easy" is almost always a lame thing to do. If they're there honestly trying, then it's not for anyone but them to decide what is hard for them.
(This post was edited by iamthewallress on Feb 1, 2008, 6:09 PM)
You only look foolish if you can't do it but persist in trying, imo. OK that's probably not the only time it looks foolish.
But without competition I would dare say NONE of us would be climbers now. You'd have a few hippys, deadbeats, mentally ill or socially disturbed folks doing it, and John Gill would be a mythical character in an Dingus Rand book - Who is John Gill?
Us posers owe EVERYTHING we know about this sport to the spirit of competition. The very foundations of alpinism and mountain climbing and all its offshoots, were based on the desire to compete.
The harder grades were all solidified through competition. You cannot take the competition out of climbing because you can't take competition out of the hearts of men and women.
CANNOT BE DONE.
DMT
But is the advancement of the sport from competing with others, or is it from the competition with ones self. I believe its a little of both, with maybe individual competition making the larger strides.
I've competed against others in a lot of other sports, diving, swimming, basketball, gymnastics, but in rock climbing I've only competed against myself.
Hmmm, if we are only competing with ourselves there is little reason for all the rating shades of gray (10d, 11b, 13c, etc.).
I'd say competition with others IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN the driving force in the sport. I pretty much dismiss the 'I only compete with myself' notion as merely another way to compete with other climbers.
Maybe someone like Mr. Gill will pop in and state his reasons for pushing the envelope, for himself or the need to be better than the next guy, maybe a mix. I wonder who the first guy was competing against?
I do agree that there is plenty of healthy competition amongst individuals, and to some extent it has indeed progressed the sport. Just saying to some, its not as much of a sport as it is a passion.
I push myself to be able to get up more difficult climbs for my own progression, not to prove I'm better than the next guy. If thats in competition with someone else on some other plane, then thats what you say.
Maybe someone like Mr. Gill will pop in and state his reasons for pushing the envelope, for himself or the need to be better than the next guy, maybe a mix. I wonder who the first guy was competing against?
Gill is a singularity. There will always be Gills, out there alone, doing god knows what, barely telling anyone in passing.
If it weren't for other climbers, competitors all, telling us about Gill? We wouldn't know kaka about what he did. See what I mean?
The first climbes? Like Belmat et al racing to see who could gain the covet FA of Mt Blanc? It was a competition from day one.
"Slaying Dragons, the Conquest of the Alps." Check it out!
Gill is not lacking in competitive instincts. He's just not an asshole about it.
Personally, although I played in various competitive sports, both individual and team, in climbing I always hated numbers, even when I could put up digits that were comparatively respectable. But I hated them not simply out of a loathing for quantification, but for the way that the privileged one narrow aspect of the sport. There is no measure--and in current American circles, no cultural capital--for aesthetic quality of a performance. Kick, scrape, bleed, drool, shake, thrash, scream, yack, wet yourself, so long as you reach the anchor, you get your number.
Gill is not lacking in competitive instincts. He's just not an asshole about it.
Of course, he was a gymnast. However, Ament's biography of him suggests that his competition, particularly in his early years, was largely with himself. He had no peers at that time. None.
Norman Clyde. Fred Beckey.
(just examples I'm familiar with)
Folks out doing something so unique with respect to everyone else they operate on a different plane altogether. Croft is this way too.
33 /
58%
1
