|
climbersoze
Jan 14, 2004, 6:46 PM
Post #1 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2003
Posts: 1142
|
In the 'techniques for tall people" thread a debate was started about skipping moves on a boulder problem (e.g. V7) and saying the rating is still V7.
I was always under the impression that a boulder problem was a sequence of moves, not just a line up the rock.
What's your take?
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Jan 14, 2004, 6:50 PM
Post #2 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
I go 180 degrees with that.
A line up a boulder.
To me, signifying particular holds to use or not use means the addition of a word: contrived. It then becomes too much akin to a gym route.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jan 14, 2004, 6:53 PM
Post #3 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
i vote for the line.
if its not the line, then when the hold broke from the "mandala" it wasnt "mandala" anymore but something else.
but if it is the line, it stays "mandala", just graded harder.
|
|
|
|
|
majoringinclimbing
Jan 14, 2004, 7:39 PM
Post #4 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 169
|
I agree with the line being what matters. In reverse of what you are saying what if the first ascent and rating were done by a tall person with big fingers but someone like me (short with smaller fingers) finds a micro-crimper to use!? With climbing I think that ratings are relative to who is climbing and what the moves/holds are. Grades are just a guideline.
|
|
|
|
|
scubasnyder
Jan 14, 2004, 7:48 PM
Post #5 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 3, 2003
Posts: 1639
|
i go with the line as well, i wish i was tall
|
|
|
|
|
climbersoze
Jan 15, 2004, 6:36 PM
Post #6 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2003
Posts: 1142
|
So let me throw this wrench in the line versus the sequence debate....
Why does a sit start matter when compared to a stand start, when it is going up the same line?
I still think V-ratings are for the sequence...
|
|
|
|
|
tawl
Jan 15, 2004, 6:42 PM
Post #7 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 14, 2003
Posts: 36
|
A sit down start changes the line, adding at least one move you cannot skip, which can be harder than the rest of the climb, thus the rating is subject to change.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 15, 2004, 6:58 PM
Post #8 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Why does a sit start matter when compared to a stand start, when it is going up the same line?
Because you have now made the "line" longer by adding additional rock that has to be climbed--which did not need to be climbed using a stand-up start.
"V" ratings do not apply to the moves, but to the line. It would be utterly ridiculous to say that every single boulderer (regardless of height, etc.) must use exactly the same sequence to do a boulder problem.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
xanx
Jan 15, 2004, 7:38 PM
Post #9 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 1002
|
the topic of sit starts can be a touchy one (especially for tall people!). my favorite problems are ones that start as low as possible on obvious holds. Lines that start up 8 ft up the boulder because the lower start puts it in the V11 range are stupid. of course, this is just a guideline... there are plenty of lines where the most obvious start is relatively high up the boulder - it is better to start it up there than not climb it at all! Also, sometimes a higher start is so much more obvious that the low start seems rediculous - look at Ryan's Problem V11 at the Gunks - it starts (originally) on the massive jug towards the end of Lynn's Traverse. PK added a low start that basically starts on some small foot jibs down low... that seems a bit pointless to me. Also, Yikes (V9) has a low start project that starts a little below and to the right of the foot jibs - it is still a project and will probably go at aroudn V13...
as for the original quesiton: the line is important, not the sequence of moves. some problems can be done tons of different ways - maybe the grade changes when someone finds a new sequence, maybe not. either way the line is the same.
|
|
|
|
|
noodlearms
Jan 15, 2004, 7:51 PM
Post #10 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2002
Posts: 145
|
In reply to: I was always under the impression that a boulder problem was a sequence of moves, not just a line up the rock.
Seems to me it wouldn't be called a "problem" if the solution was predetermined.
|
|
|
|
|
jgill
Jan 16, 2004, 12:44 AM
Post #11 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2002
Posts: 653
|
This is a topic that has been and will remain controversial for some time. My opinion is summarized in the following excerpt from my website:
" And Eliminates . . . ?
What, now, of eliminates? Does this concept help distinguish the 'old' from the 'new'? These contrivances certainly distinguish bouldering from longer, more traditional climbs. However, there is no evidence that, historically, the elimination of holds was frowned upon. Indeed, the photo,on the first page of the Origins of Bouldering section of this site, of Dr. Joseph Collier climbing a boulder in Great Britain in the 1890s upside down argues that contrivances have always been part of the game. And the inscription on the same page accompanying the photo of the unknown boulder proves that the practice of eliminating holds occurred more than a century ago. It is likely that sit-starts were part of the early game, as well.
Route vs. Problem . . .
In addition, there is no clear consensus, even today, that eliminates are ethically acceptable. Some climbers, like John Long, believe that you start at a certain point and end at another, and what you do in between is your business. However, in my view, eliminates constitute legitimate modern problems – contrived variants - embedded within boulder routes. Thus, the distinction between boulder route and boulder problem : a route is a path from point A to point B; a problem may be either a simple path or a set of guidelines for traversing a particular path. "
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Jan 16, 2004, 12:55 AM
Post #12 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
I think the route v. problem argument is an excellent rhetorical device to delinate between philosophies.
My own bent is toward route in the sense that I like doing the hardest routes the easiest possible way, thus the problem is to keep looking for more efficient ways of spanning the "start" to the "end."
I accept the argument that a problem is using a certain set of holds. I certainly have had problems doing that! :D
|
|
|
|
|
chopper
Jan 28, 2004, 5:56 AM
Post #13 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2003
Posts: 17
|
how many climbers in here are 6' and over......i know of countless problems that ive done that skip moves and add moves just to complete. a boulder problem is only a problem when it hasnt been done before. ratings are a bad idea. im from the claifornia highdesert.....a crimpy sandstone problem is nothing for mebut someone used to polished granite it would be, as is me going to a granite boulderfield although im a bad ass but anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
dynoguy
Jan 28, 2004, 6:20 AM
Post #14 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 6, 2003
Posts: 730
|
In reply to: I go 180 degrees with that. A line up a boulder. To me, signifying particular holds to use or not use means the addition of a word: contrived. It then becomes too much akin to a gym route.
I totally agree
For example on some routes indoors the holds are numbered :roll:
Thats not very realistic, if I could use hold 8 before hold 7 whats to stop me?
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Jan 28, 2004, 6:24 AM
Post #15 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
It's the line. If that gives tall freaks an unfair advantage, then maybe we should invent a new rating system based on your height, weight, gender, finger diameter and length, etc... :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
oklahoma_climber
Jan 28, 2004, 6:54 AM
Post #16 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 26, 2002
Posts: 204
|
In reply to: I agree with the line being what matters. In reverse of what you are saying what if the first ascent and rating were done by a tall person with big fingers but someone like me (short with smaller fingers) finds a micro-crimper to use!? With climbing I think that ratings are relative to who is climbing and what the moves/holds are. Grades are just a guideline.
good call...
....and just think, this voice of reason is coming from Lincoln, Nebraska! Can you imagine what this place would be like if the people up in the mountains and so called "Climbing HotSpots" could think this clearly....?
|
|
|
|
|
dc
Jan 28, 2004, 8:59 AM
Post #17 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2003
Posts: 355
|
In reply to: how many climbers in here are 6' and over
also.. i also tend to lean more towards a problem (pre-determined moves), rather than a route(where you use any means possible to get from A to B)
|
|
|
|
|
mustclimb69
Jan 28, 2004, 1:42 PM
Post #18 of 18
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 479
|
The line...If a shorter person climbs a 5.12 is it a 13 to them???
Learn to dyno and suck it up! kidding
My GF has real problems with this shes 5'2" and can climb 5.9 but in the gym grips are sparce so she gets frusterated and has to climb lower in the winter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
