That's the typical knee-jerk sport climber/boulderer response - our pursuit is distilled down to the pure essence. Mainly used as an excuse when all the extraneous stuff turns out to be too hard and scary.

Ummm, given that you know about "how the +- and a,b.c.d thing came about", what exactly is your excuse for not understanding how it doesn't necessarily represent grade inflation for new school 5.12- climbs to be easier than old school 5.9+s? Maybe you should give it a little more thought while you're stirring your Metamucil?

Check your own knee-jerk reaction. I don't exclude trad climbing from "real climbing." I just understand that it's not the only kind.

Jay

However embracing and encompassing potential danger has been an integral part of the climbing experience for several hundred years. It's only the last couple of decades that a revisionist approach has been taken - attempting to use the same term - "climbing" - to describe their dumbed down sanitized activity. For all your recent lip service to recognizing all types of climbing experiences as valid - you have a long history of being derogatory towards old school attitudes and approaches. That's a kind of climbing too - more in tune with the multi century history of climbing.

I have not been derogatory to trad climbing, except to express my opinion that it is uninteresting. What I have been derogatory about are dismissive attitudes like yours.

Jay

How about this idea - historically a major factor of climbing is that there is an element of risk. Overcoming that is part of the whole - may not be the primary reason for climbing but was one of the components and part of the challenge,. That was the basis for the often (miss) quote of Hemingway about real sports. The whole philosophy of "sport climbing" is to engineer out that risk factor. Fine by me - to each their own (am I being dismissive again - probably) what I object to is till calling this activity "climbing" and believing it has a connection to what has gone on for 100's of years. Call it "extreme vertical movement" if you will - much more akin to gymnastics or a Project Bandaloop performance.

I little irony in that statement I would say.

You know you could have an excellent career as a politician - your ability to take one thing out of context and make some provocative response designed to pander to the masses and receive their accolades - increase your stature as an Internet hero - is astounding. Not so much your ability as a debater though as you ignore 95% of the topic.

I know you don't like to elaborate - might diminish your reputation with the masses if it became clear that you are just spraying the latest fashion and have no real depth of knowledge of the climbing subject - but comment as you see fit on the following two items (I wait with baited breath).

You say I thought you were derogatory towards trad climbing - what I actually said was other - typically older styles. Consider the pink point vs. redpoint topic. You have repeatedly dissed the concept of pink pointing and anyone who would care. Not very accepting of other styles are those that consider them significant - no stick clipping and on-sight being others - no you just stick with the latest fashion making snide comments designed to improve your popularity with the main stream.

How about this idea - historically a major factor of climbing is that there is an element of risk. Overcoming that is part of the whole - may not be the primary reason for climbing but was one of the components and part of the challenge,. That was the basis for the often (miss) quote of Hemingway about real sports. The whole philosophy of "sport climbing" is to engineer out that risk factor. Fine by me - to each their own (am I being dismissive again - probably) what I object to is till calling this activity "climbing" and believing it has a connection to what has gone on for 100's of years. Call it "extreme vertical movement" if you will - much more akin to gymnastics or a Project Bandaloop performance.

OK fire away - more then 2 lines if you dare.

JT claims I am delusional for thinking that. You claim it's obvious. No wonder us geezers get crotchety. You whipper snappers need to coordinate yoyur attacks. Even someone named after a cheap car should realize that.

so saying you should never load a biner over an edge is dumb too.. Never zip clipping.. never back clip.. never have a biner crossloaded over the gate.. never fall with the rope behind your leg..

there's lots of things you just shouldn't fucking do. ever.

What if I'm up on 2500' up on a wall, out of rescue territory. I'm 80' out from my last piece, and i find a bolt. But clipping it puts my last biner that i have on me over an edge. Should I skip it because you told me to never ever ever put a biner over an edge?

your a sport recreationer eh jake?

Sounds like a 5.4 slab. You should be fine either way.

Hey Jay - Heliums gate open: 10kN.

Bam! Take that Mr Pretzl!

G

Did he place his own gear - might have been (relatively) trivial to do - but he wasn't relying in someone else to engineer out the risk.

Stubai Supreme = 11 kN open

Kong Ergo #763 = 12 kN open

Take that Mr.WC...