Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Bouldering:
Best Boulderer Ever
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Bouldering

Premier Sponsor:

 


teh_chariot


Dec 11, 2006, 10:19 AM
Post #1 of 202 (10868 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2006
Posts: 22

Best Boulderer Ever
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In my opinion its Fred Nicole.


(This post was edited by teh_chariot on Dec 11, 2006, 10:33 AM)


johnathon78


Dec 11, 2006, 10:37 AM
Post #2 of 202 (10845 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 340

Re: [teh_chariot] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In my opinion its this guy named Frank that lives near me. He boulders like V3 constantly! Not just once or twice....but every day. And, he doesent even brag about it. He's the man. I already hate this thread.


jh_angel


Dec 11, 2006, 11:26 AM
Post #3 of 202 (10785 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 232

Re: [teh_chariot] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm casting my vote for Fred as well.

-Josh


mchristie


Dec 12, 2006, 11:02 AM
Post #4 of 202 (10666 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2006
Posts: 51

Re: [teh_chariot] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Jim Holloway....hands down. Nicole is a badass, but not compared to Holloway. Holloway put up problems in the 70's with EBs and fires as the "latest hot shoe" that have yet to be repeated today! that's v12-13 in 1977.

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.

Modern climbers are currently pushing the sport, but the pioneers were far ahead of their time!


freeforsum


Dec 12, 2006, 11:23 AM
Post #5 of 202 (10649 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [mchristie] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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


calii22


Dec 13, 2006, 2:28 PM
Post #6 of 202 (10551 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 8, 2004
Posts: 45

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

your dumb mister


musicman1586


Dec 14, 2006, 2:57 PM
Post #7 of 202 (10491 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 488

Re: [calii22] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Dai Koyamada, Fred Nicole, David Graham, to name a few

But in the end, who cares? 99.9% of us will never be near that level, so I think the more important boulderers are the ones that have done the most for us mortals, with guys like John Gill and John Sherman being my two choices.


mushroomsamba


Dec 14, 2006, 3:44 PM
Post #8 of 202 (10467 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 23, 2006
Posts: 389

Re: [teh_chariot] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

John Gill. We wouldn't be doing what we are today without him


calii22


Dec 14, 2006, 4:39 PM
Post #9 of 202 (10441 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 8, 2004
Posts: 45

Re: [teh_chariot] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

you guys are forgeting sharma and moon how could you forget sharma and moon
In reply to:


curt


Dec 14, 2006, 11:13 PM
Post #10 of 202 (10281 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

freeforsum wrote:
Who cares? Its just bouldering. bouldering alone is lame.

Funny how all incredibly weak climbers say that.

Curt


ninja_climber


Dec 15, 2006, 12:39 AM
Post #11 of 202 (10269 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 9, 2005
Posts: 403

Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

^This man speaks the truth....Sly


chalker7


Dec 15, 2006, 4:32 AM
Post #12 of 202 (10248 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2003
Posts: 317

Re: [mchristie] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

mchristie wrote:
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.

What a tragedy! God forbid anyone climb trad. Shocked


Partner gunksgoer


Dec 15, 2006, 8:30 AM
Post #13 of 202 (10157 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 1290

Re: [teh_chariot] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

My vote is for Jim Holloway.


munky


Dec 15, 2006, 9:13 AM
Post #14 of 202 (10137 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 26, 2006
Posts: 358

Re: [gunksgoer] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

What about these kids nowadays. Nobody has mentioned Daniel Woods, Paul Robinson, Jon Cardwell, Ethan Pringle, etc. They're picking up where the last generation has left off. Most of these kids have been pulling on double digit problems for the past 5 years, albeit mostly indoors, but are now taking it outside w/ a vengence. I think I read that Woods is repeating Graham and Litz problems in RMNP in a couple of tries. That's ridiculous. I've climbed w/ James and I know how inhuman his strength is and to think about someone being that much stronger is scary. I don't know but I wouldn't be too suprised if we see these kids take the next step.

Munky


Spaceman617


Dec 15, 2006, 9:27 AM
Post #15 of 202 (10044 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 13, 2006
Posts: 4

Re: [munky] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I vote for Jim Link. He got me started bouldering.


munky


Dec 15, 2006, 9:56 AM
Post #16 of 202 (10025 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 26, 2006
Posts: 358

Re: [Spaceman617] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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.


climbing_guy295


Dec 15, 2006, 11:52 AM
Post #17 of 202 (9975 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 41

Re: [munky] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Chris Sharma.


musicman1586


Dec 15, 2006, 1:19 PM
Post #18 of 202 (9947 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 488

Re: [munky] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

munky wrote:
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.

That's not necessarily true, tall climbers have some advantages, but they have some disadvantages. Tall climbers have more reach no doubt, but they take up more space and that makes it harder for them to get into cramped positions. It's a trade-off, and so some problems they will have an advantage at, others they will have a much harder time with. Height really means nothing, you just learn to work with what you've got. Two of the best climbers I know are exact opposites, one is 5'3", the other is 6'0-2" and their styles are different, but they ultimately get through the same routes.


erin


Dec 15, 2006, 1:20 PM
Post #19 of 202 (9947 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2005
Posts: 149

Re: [teh_chariot] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The best boulderer is the one who never boulders.


curt


Dec 15, 2006, 5:47 PM
Post #20 of 202 (9907 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [erin] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

erin wrote:
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


kydd76


Dec 15, 2006, 6:54 PM
Post #21 of 202 (9889 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Posts: 228

Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Dam! I say john gill, He was followed by Holloway next down the line, all the way to the kids pulling down V14+ ?


jh_angel


Dec 15, 2006, 7:14 PM
Post #22 of 202 (9872 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 232

Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
erin wrote:
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

Actually it sounds like that is exactly what she needs... if she's a number chaser.

-Josh


zeke_sf


Dec 15, 2006, 7:57 PM
Post #23 of 202 (9854 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730

Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I could say "that's a little harsh," but you'd probably just get off on that. so I won't. ha. I thought she was going for a humorous, zen/grasshopper type thing, rather than some slight against bouldering.

on topic: I think we need some bouldering baseball cards or something, so we can more easily compare stats, sending averages, FAs batted in. blah, who gives a fuck?


(This post was edited by zeke_sf on Dec 15, 2006, 8:11 PM)


freeforsum


Dec 20, 2006, 9:01 AM
Post #24 of 202 (9761 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
freeforsum wrote:
Who cares? Its just bouldering. bouldering alone is lame.

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.


dlintz


Dec 20, 2006, 9:10 AM
Post #25 of 202 (9756 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

freeforsum wrote:
curt wrote:
freeforsum wrote:
Who cares? Its just bouldering. bouldering alone is lame.

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.


freeforsum


Dec 20, 2006, 2:12 PM
Post #26 of 202 (4774 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [dlintz] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dlintz wrote:
freeforsum wrote:
curt wrote:
freeforsum wrote:
Who cares? Its just bouldering. bouldering alone is lame.

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.


thomasribiere


Dec 20, 2006, 2:17 PM
Post #27 of 202 (4772 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Fred Nicole has been bouldering hard for a long time and in different places for years now. I vote for him, though in a few years I might vote for someone else.


petsfed


Dec 20, 2006, 3:00 PM
Post #28 of 202 (4763 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8599

Re: [teh_chariot] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

No matter how good any of these guys get, there will always be some stronger climber out there who just stays under the radar. Always. So I think this is an unanswerable question.


petsfed


Dec 20, 2006, 3:02 PM
Post #29 of 202 (4762 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8599

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

freeforsum wrote:
dlintz wrote:
freeforsum wrote:
curt wrote:
freeforsum wrote:
Who cares? Its just bouldering. bouldering alone is lame.

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.


freeforsum


Dec 20, 2006, 3:08 PM
Post #30 of 202 (4756 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [petsfed] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
freeforsum wrote:
dlintz wrote:
freeforsum wrote:
curt wrote:
freeforsum wrote:
Who cares? Its just bouldering. bouldering alone is lame.

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.

I love it too! My sarcasm apparently missed you.... I was kidding ass monkey!

This thread should be called the most popular boulderer.


freeforsum


Dec 20, 2006, 3:54 PM
Post #31 of 202 (4747 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [petsfed] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
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.


dlintz


Dec 20, 2006, 4:39 PM
Post #32 of 202 (4735 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

freeforsum wrote:
petsfed wrote:
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.

Fuckin' true. Putting on the harness, tying knots....I'm way too lazy for that shit.

d.


(This post was edited by dlintz on Dec 20, 2006, 8:27 PM)


milominderbinder


Dec 20, 2006, 4:49 PM
Post #33 of 202 (4731 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2005
Posts: 84

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Anyone who purports to know 'the true point of climbing' is kidding themselves, especially if the point of climbing happens to exclude some type of climbing.

However...

freeforsum wrote:
This thread should be called the most popular boulderer.

This is very true.


vegasguy


Dec 20, 2006, 5:32 PM
Post #34 of 202 (4715 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 150

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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. Is adding something postive that hard for you? or do you rather question what you don't understand? Just a thought, its odd how people go out of their way to bash other types of climbing. Just my two cents. oh and my vote goes to all the old guys that put up problems yet to be repeated.

Cheers
a


jderekforrester


Dec 20, 2006, 7:42 PM
Post #35 of 202 (4688 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 104

Re: [teh_chariot] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Honestly,
Bouldering is really like having sex with Paris Hilton. Yah, its good for a couple of minutes, but ultimately its over before it started. Grab a few condoms, and go get it on with a real route.
-Joe


edl


Dec 20, 2006, 8:24 PM
Post #36 of 202 (4680 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 134

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

freeforsum wrote:
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.

It could also be said that taking pride in your ability to go places on a rock wall that "have a sense of commitment" is the ego part of climbing. Obviously for you roping up yeilds more satisfaction, but that can't be said for everyone. BTW, roping up is just training for climbing big steep mountains.


granite_puller


Dec 20, 2006, 10:10 PM
Post #37 of 202 (4663 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 5, 2006
Posts: 28

Re: [teh_chariot] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Anybody who comes into a bouldering forum to say that bouldering is lame really needs to find more productive uses of their free time. Bouldering is climbing reduced to the absolute basics, just pulling moves on rocks, and consequently it is fun as shit. That being said, I just saw fred nicole climb for the first time in the movie specimen, and it is by far the most impressive and inspiring thing I have ever seen. He literally floats, somehow making a huge dyno look like a static move. It makes Daniel Woods' climbing look laughable in comparison. Definitely one of the strongest and smoothest out there.


miavzero


Dec 20, 2006, 10:34 PM
Post #38 of 202 (4656 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 7, 2005
Posts: 624

Re: [granite_puller] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

so is it shampoo, or coditioner?

water or gatorade?


freeforsum


Dec 21, 2006, 7:58 AM
Post #39 of 202 (4628 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [vegasguy] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

vegasguy wrote:
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.

Its not just bouldering that I bash, its anything I dont agree with, just like you would do when you dont agree with it. This site is for agreeing or bashing. Or for me for the last 4 years, mainly looking at picures.


vegasguy


Dec 21, 2006, 8:34 AM
Post #40 of 202 (4618 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 150

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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...


freeforsum


Dec 21, 2006, 8:58 AM
Post #41 of 202 (4613 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [vegasguy] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

vegasguy wrote:
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


styndall


Dec 21, 2006, 9:16 AM
Post #42 of 202 (4600 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

freeforsum wrote:
vegasguy wrote:
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.


freeforsum


Dec 21, 2006, 9:22 AM
Post #43 of 202 (4594 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [styndall] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

styndall wrote:
freeforsum wrote:
vegasguy wrote:
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.


styndall


Dec 21, 2006, 10:35 AM
Post #44 of 202 (4575 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

freeforsum wrote:
styndall wrote:
freeforsum wrote:
vegasguy wrote:
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.


freeforsum


Dec 21, 2006, 10:46 AM
Post #45 of 202 (4568 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [styndall] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

styndall wrote:

Must be new? eh...

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

That all you got? Burned off my warmups? petty!
C-mon, if your going to bring it.... then bring it.


vegasguy


Dec 21, 2006, 11:08 AM
Post #46 of 202 (4556 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 150

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You have to watch making assumptions. Simpliy because the boulders you have talked to are lazy does not in any way give you the go ahead to say that ALL boulders are lazy. HHMMM bouldering is a fad,eh. Well I will agree with you on the fact at this currrent time bouldering is a fad. But how can something thats been around longer than most other types be a fad. If you need help think about FONT. and if you need more go to John Gills website.

Heres to going crazy on a rest day,
Andy


freeforsum


Dec 21, 2006, 11:10 AM
Post #47 of 202 (4553 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [vegasguy] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

vegasguy wrote:
Heres to going crazy on a rest day,

Ant that the truth!


BoulderTX


Dec 23, 2006, 2:31 PM
Post #48 of 202 (4488 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 19

Re: [erin] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
The best boulderer is the one who never boulders.
If you read your own signature, it seems strange that you would make such a comment. If you are so anti-bouldering, what you doing on the thread? Why not just appreciate all aspects of climbing and not trash someone else's interest?


stashyboy


Dec 23, 2006, 5:00 PM
Post #49 of 202 (4470 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 11, 2004
Posts: 33

Re: [BoulderTX] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I for one think bouldering is great if your body can take it....dynos (rotator cup) ground falls (recently broken foot) and any other high stresses generated by bouldering can usually be avoided with static controled lead(mostly trad) climbing....I speak for some of my aging friends here too. Us old guys (and I'm only 42!!) need to preserve what we have left. Call it lame, but it's true. Again nothing against bouldering some of those guys do incredible things...My vote might be for Dave Graham as he seems to have been pretty succesful at bouldering and roped climbing....


kr0g3r


Dec 24, 2006, 3:35 PM
Post #50 of 202 (4436 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Posts: 142

Re: [stashyboy] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

well i like Tony Lamiche...

and i boulder because i cant afford a rope. so yeah maybe there's some other people out there like me that are poor but love to climb. not just lazy, though i am a bit lazy too.


wzrdgandalf


Dec 24, 2006, 5:22 PM
Post #51 of 202 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2004
Posts: 261

Re: [kr0g3r] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Im going to have to throw my vote out there for Dave Graham and Sharma as of now. These guys are so explosive and continue to put up classics. They will probably be the best at what they do for the next five years until the "youngins" like daniel woods come into their own and truly throw down the gauntlet. You have to look at what he does before even the legal age to imbibe in alcohol.


johnnybird


Dec 24, 2006, 6:06 PM
Post #52 of 202 (5022 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 7, 2006
Posts: 10

Re: [wzrdgandalf] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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.


secretninja


Dec 24, 2006, 9:59 PM
Post #53 of 202 (4986 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 1, 2005
Posts: 154

Re: [miavzero] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

miavzero wrote:
so is it shampoo, or coditioner?

water or gatorade?

GAAAAATTTTTTTOOOOORRRRAAADDDDEEEE!!!!

But seriously folks, its gotta be sharma. I think "witness the fitness" pretty much set that in stone (for at least a year or two). And his trademark grunt is an inspiration to us all! From the crusty trad hog to the hipster boulder addict, who hasnt whipped one of those babies out to stick that nasty crux move?


escalabrasil


Dec 25, 2006, 6:55 AM
Post #54 of 202 (4974 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 29, 2005
Posts: 51

Re: [secretninja] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ME!Tongue Just kidding.
Seriously, this is an impossible question to answer.
I agree with whoever posted saying this should be changed to favorite, or most popular boulderer ever (too lazy to check who it was since I also boulder). Then, my vote goes to Sharma and Koyamada. I have no idea why. It's just fun to watch them I guess...


curt


Dec 25, 2006, 10:49 PM
Post #55 of 202 (4953 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [escalabrasil] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'll go with John Gill or Jim Holloway. Are Sharma, Nicole or the others currently bouldering 4 or 5 grades harder than anyone else on the planet? No, I didn't think so.

Curt


freeforsum


Dec 26, 2006, 11:44 AM
Post #56 of 202 (4931 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [johnnybird] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

johnnybird wrote:
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.


dlintz


Dec 26, 2006, 12:53 PM
Post #57 of 202 (4920 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

freeforsum wrote:
johnnybird wrote:
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.

Accend = To set on fire

What does that have to do with the best boulderer ever?

d.


freeforsum


Dec 26, 2006, 1:20 PM
Post #58 of 202 (4914 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [dlintz] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

dlintz wrote:
You can shorten that definition alot

Climb = To accend.

Accend = To set on fire

What does that have to do with the best boulderer ever?

d.
Nothing!

Just like the best boulderer does not exsist. Its a personal choice.
Personaly, Im the best boulderer, simply because I could not care less who the "best boulderer is"!


headyhemp


Dec 26, 2006, 4:52 PM
Post #59 of 202 (4894 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 25, 2006
Posts: 31

Re: [teh_chariot] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Oak. He is the best to me . I haven't seen anyone climb boulders better. Southern MO kid I met @ elephant rocks.


akicebum


Dec 26, 2006, 8:31 PM
Post #60 of 202 (4868 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 1, 2003
Posts: 258

Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I have to agree with John Gill, he and Halloway really turned bouldering into a discipline all of its own and not just a way to pass the time. While I always bitch and moan about bouldering it is only because I am too fat and weak to boulder hard myself. Those haters out their obviously have no idea what bouldering is. Bouldering is basically the hardest crux you can manage. Endurance is replaced by creativity and pure strength. Once you step away from the pioneers of the sport there is are two names that haven't even been mentioned Bernd Zangrel and Klem Loskot. Both have authored V14 and proposed V15 routes around the world. I agree that Fred Nicole is pretty much the man and personally ushered in the last couple of grades, but there are some many people climbing so hard now he is lost in a crowd. Everyone has their own style and their higher end routes reflect their strengths. I can't believe I was bored enough to reply to this subject.


namoclimber


Dec 30, 2006, 5:06 PM
Post #61 of 202 (4817 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 118

Re: [akicebum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The one having the most fun and not spraying about his stupid ass accomplishments


socalclimber


Dec 30, 2006, 5:55 PM
Post #62 of 202 (4809 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 2437

Re: [namoclimber] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Holy Jeebus, who really cares?


freeforsum


Jan 4, 2007, 11:58 AM
Post #63 of 202 (4765 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Posts: 56

Re: [socalclimber] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

socalclimber wrote:
Holy Jeebus, who really cares?

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

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


curt


Jan 4, 2007, 7:16 PM
Post #64 of 202 (4748 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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

Is that what all of your other NAMBLA climbing buddies think, too?

Curt


CuriousJorge


Jan 8, 2007, 5:27 PM
Post #65 of 202 (4694 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2007
Posts: 7

Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
freeforsum wrote:
Who cares? Its just bouldering. bouldering alone is lame.

Funny how all incredibly weak climbers say that.

Curt

amen. i boulder and people give me crap for not being 40 ft. in the air. so what your on a rope. climb on the roof of a cave and then come talk to me.


(This post was edited by CuriousJorge on Jan 8, 2007, 5:27 PM)


roflcakes


Jan 10, 2007, 7:45 AM
Post #66 of 202 (4659 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2007
Posts: 90

Re: [CuriousJorge] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Whats the big deal, I think that the best boulderer is Fred Nichole, yeah yeah so John Gill "started it" , whatever, its just like calculus, it would have come along anyways, WHAT ABOUT THE GRIT CLIMBERS WAY BEFORE GILL. Derek Hersey, made every wall into a boulder problem, he didnt rope up. He free climbed, everyone needs to get of Gills nuts hes old, there are still more boulders left in this world then there has been climbers, that means the best boulderer ever might still emerge. But, as for now, the order is Nichole, Sharma, Grahm, Moon(grit climber), Woods


ratched


Jan 11, 2007, 10:08 PM
Post #67 of 202 (4608 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 11, 2007
Posts: 11

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

freeforsum wrote:
socalclimber wrote:
Holy Jeebus, who really cares?

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

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

And why is that precisely?

Twenty years ago, sport was greeted with a similar elitist mindset as you have demonstrated here. Twenty years from now, we might see another climbing fad emerge which us boulderers will heckle to no end. Who cares?

No one here climbs to impress you, freeforsum. Why should a climber feel that he or she must meet a certain standard of "hardcoreness" or "extremeness" that is set forth with the notion of being a climber?

It sounds although you have spent a bit too much time on this site rather than climbing. Perhaps if you were to get out and climb, you might not be so damn bitter about the whole issue and simply realize that people climb whatever makes them happy.

Or, if you really like, come on up here and flash some of my projects. I really need the beta....


asc_climb


Jan 20, 2007, 5:24 PM
Post #68 of 202 (4555 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Posts: 67

Re: [teh_chariot] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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

....maybeUnsure


twaikker


Jan 20, 2007, 7:34 PM
Post #69 of 202 (4532 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2005
Posts: 131

Re: [asc_climb] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

what do you know protogay? dai is not even as good as you. just cause you dont publicise your V18's, you are the best in the world.


sick_climba


Mar 9, 2007, 10:46 PM
Post #70 of 202 (4446 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 31, 2005
Posts: 508

Re: [twaikker] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Best boulderer in the world? My bro vinnie, he doens't climb hard, but he's got heart. He was able to get the first few moves of a v.8 that i set and he has only been climbing for a little while. Hes a solid 5.9 climber but man he threw everything at this problem. HE got the first three moves ( mind you the entire problem is very consistently v8) so in my mind he is one of the best... because he got up from failing at that problem again and again with a smile on his face, and jsut the words wow that is cool


curt


Mar 10, 2007, 8:56 AM
Post #71 of 202 (4424 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [asc_climb] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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

....maybeUnsure

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

Curt


quiteatingmysteak


Mar 10, 2007, 9:13 AM
Post #72 of 202 (4416 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 804

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

freeforsum wrote:
socalclimber wrote:
Holy Jeebus, who really cares?

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

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


bad.


dhaulagiri


Mar 10, 2007, 10:13 AM
Post #73 of 202 (4402 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 29, 2003
Posts: 236

Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

freeforsum wrote:
socalclimber wrote:
Holy Jeebus, who really cares?

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

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

If you didn't care then you don't really have to bother even posting about it


chainsaw


Mar 12, 2007, 8:46 AM
Post #74 of 202 (4356 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 1, 2007
Posts: 37

Re: [BoulderTX] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Gill and Holloway are both a bit overrated. Not that they weren't pushing standards or great boulderers for the time. Gill certainly gets a ton of credit for inventing bouldering. However, the first bouldering guidebook to Fontainbleau came out in the early 1940's! Though Gill was bouldering way harder than anyone else at the time, no one else was bouldering so the competition was slim. 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.
Dave Graham in my opinion is the best boulderer to come along so far. He has consistently repeated the hardest established problems in the world in record time, and put up testpieces that are unrepeated even after attempts by the likes of Nicole and others. The guy is a machine.


curt


Mar 12, 2007, 5:41 PM
Post #75 of 202 (4323 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [chainsaw] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chainsaw wrote:
...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...

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


fracture


Mar 12, 2007, 7:46 PM
Post #76 of 202 (4372 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2003
Posts: 1814

Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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

Incoherent nonsense.


curt


Mar 12, 2007, 9:01 PM
Post #77 of 202 (4355 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

fracture wrote:
curt wrote:
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

Curt


(This post was edited by curt on Mar 12, 2007, 9:01 PM)


fracture


Mar 12, 2007, 9:26 PM
Post #78 of 202 (4346 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 12, 2003
Posts: 1814

Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
fracture wrote:
curt wrote:
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

Facts like what?

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.)
  • V-grades have been applied to problems even longer than Wheel of Life since their introduction in Hueco Tanks. (The 135' V8 at the Gymnasium.)
  • The YDS was also applied to boulder problems for many years before that.
  • The original definition of the V-scale explicitly includes and mentions endurance.

    The facts are on my side. The history is on my side. And moreover, making coherent sense is on my side. Maybe one day you'll realize it.... or maybe you just can't teach an old dog new tricks.


  • chainsaw


    Mar 13, 2007, 9:57 AM
    Post #79 of 202 (4312 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Mar 1, 2007
    Posts: 37

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    curt wrote:
    chainsaw wrote:
    ...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...

    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
    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. p.s. I'm not saying he wasn't visionary or a great climber . . .


    karma


    Mar 13, 2007, 10:08 AM
    Post #80 of 202 (4308 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 4, 2005
    Posts: 95

    Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post



    I do love all the rampant sarcasm.


    medicus


    Mar 13, 2007, 4:58 PM
    Post #81 of 202 (4288 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 1, 2006
    Posts: 727

    Re: [karma] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

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

    I do love all the rampant sarcasm.

    Lol, best post on this entire thread.


    hyongx


    Mar 13, 2007, 6:27 PM
    Post #82 of 202 (4276 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Sep 16, 2004
    Posts: 209

    Re: [medicus] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    when i finally send that sick boulder problem i've been working on in the gym for the past week,
    I think that I am the best boulderer in the world,
    and thats all that matters.


    curt


    Mar 13, 2007, 6:27 PM
    Post #83 of 202 (4276 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [chainsaw] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    chainsaw wrote:
    curt wrote:
    chainsaw wrote:
    ...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...

    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
    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."

    Hollow's Way may very well be a reach problem. That's totally irrelevant though--because Hollow's Way isn't a boulder problem that Jim Holloway established. Hollow's Way was first done by Bob Candelaria. By the way, if you're so fucking smart, why are you asking me what the other two problems are?

    chainsaw wrote:
    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...

    Those problems are still unrepeated, genius. In fact, even today Holloway probably has more unrepeated boulder problems than any other boulderer in history. Just because you are ignorant of Holloway's problems does not make them "obscure." Get a fucking clue.

    Curt


    curt


    Mar 13, 2007, 6:45 PM
    Post #84 of 202 (4273 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    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.

    fracture wrote:
  • V-grades have been applied to problems even longer than Wheel of Life since their introduction in Hueco Tanks. (The 135' V8 at the Gymnasium.)

  • 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.

    fracture wrote:
  • The YDS was also applied to boulder problems for many years before that.

  • 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.

    Curt


    fracture


    Mar 13, 2007, 8:55 PM
    Post #85 of 202 (4258 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    curt wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    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.

    Assuming you're not talking about people who don't even speak English, that's simply an impossible claim. A word always means what most native speakers think it means. Period.

    Please, go buy a book on linguistics, Curt, before you further embarrass yourself by spewing any more unscientific bullshit.

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

    You simply have no clue what you are talking about. Linguistics is an empirical science, Curt. And claims about the meaning of the word "bouldering" are linguistic claims. You can't just make shit up, okay?

    And when you admit that "many other people" use the term in the way I am describing, you are basically admitting that I am correct. Either "bouldering" doesn't mean what you are claiming it means, or there are multiple (possibly contradictory) senses of the word in active use (which is the norm for climbing terminology).

    In reply to:
    fracture wrote:
  • V-grades have been applied to problems even longer than Wheel of Life since their introduction in Hueco Tanks. (The 135' V8 at the Gymnasium.)

  • 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.

    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.

    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---and then arguing that it shouldn't be the case. But then, we'd still be waiting for a coherent argument on that front. (And I've been discussing this with you ever since Wheel of Life was put up without ever seeing you produce a single one!)

    You can start by telling us in what way the V-scale and the YDS are fundamentally different. Because, if they are (and I think it is painfully apparent that they are not), then it is obviously not due to the length of climbing that they have been applied to. (cf. the facts I've enumerated.)

    In reply to:
    fracture wrote:
  • The YDS was also applied to boulder problems for many years before that.

  • 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.

    But, the YDS is suitable for rating boulder problems, as evidenced by the fact that it was once successfully used for it! Not to mention the thousands of one-move-wonder sport routes found at crags across the country (i.e. "short sequences of very hard moves").

    The V-scale was an unnecessary invention (although it lacks some of the historical baggage and could therefore arguably be considered more elegant). But it certainly doesn't really hurt anything; there's already a plethora of rating systems of this same type out there (YDS, Hueco, French, Font, Aussie, UIAA, etc.). Any cumulative (aka, not "hardest move"), difficulty-only (aka, danger is irrelevant) grading system is the same: the only difference is where each "notch" in the scale is located, and how they are spelled.

    And please try to make some sort of (non-fallacious) argument in your next post. I'd really find it much more entertaining than this crap, which is just way too easy.


    (This post was edited by fracture on Mar 13, 2007, 9:29 PM)


    curt


    Mar 13, 2007, 11:07 PM
    Post #86 of 202 (4238 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    ...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.

    Curt


    fracture


    Mar 14, 2007, 2:22 AM
    Post #87 of 202 (4226 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    curt wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    ...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.

    Argue your "point" further? What point? You have yet to make a point!

    Curt: if we are debating whether the items I enumerated are facts, then it is completely irrelevant what any authority you can name thinks. Each of those are empirical claims that are either true or false, regardless of whether anyone wants them to be true or false.

    On the other hand, if you want to claim that the V-scale shouldn't be applied to long boulder problems (and admit that the items I enumerated are facts), then the burden is on you to provide a good argument for that change. (And you have yet to do so, in any of these threads in the past several years.) Again: an Appeal to Authority is not a good argument.

    And, in case you can't quite hear what you sound like when you read your own posts, here's your post condensed to a more digestible Cliff Notes form, for your edification (and other's amusement):
  • Your position is idiotic.
  • Sherman and Gill agree with me, therefore I'm right.
  • You live in a fantasy world.

    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.


    (This post was edited by fracture on Mar 14, 2007, 2:35 AM)


  • chainsaw


    Mar 14, 2007, 8:46 AM
    Post #88 of 202 (4205 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Mar 1, 2007
    Posts: 37

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    In reply to:
    curt wrote:
    chainsaw wrote:
    curt wrote:
    chainsaw wrote:
    ...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...

    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
    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."

    Hollow's Way may very well be a reach problem. That's totally irrelevant though--because Hollow's Way isn't a boulder problem that Jim Holloway established. Hollow's Way was first done by Bob Candelaria. By the way, if you're so fucking smart, why are you asking me what the other two problems are?

    Uh, because I don't know, but I guess that makes me an idiot. You don't seem to be giving any answers though, so what does that make you? I guess your right curt, your arguments just seem so much stronger when you call people dumb.

    chainsaw wrote:
    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...

    Those problems are still unrepeated, genius. In fact, even today Holloway probably has more unrepeated boulder problems than any other boulderer in history. Just because you are ignorant of Holloway's problems does not make them "obscure." Get a fucking clue.Curt

    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. Your the one who needs to pull his head out of his ass and get a clue Curt. Remember, this thread is about the "Best Boulderer Ever".
    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.


    (This post was edited by chainsaw on Mar 14, 2007, 8:51 AM)


    fulton


    Mar 14, 2007, 9:22 AM
    Post #89 of 202 (4194 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Feb 26, 2004
    Posts: 210

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Curt boulderers,
    so he must be the best boulderer.


    kr0g3r


    Mar 14, 2007, 12:31 PM
    Post #90 of 202 (4169 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 3, 2006
    Posts: 142

    Re: [chainsaw] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    chainsaw wrote:
    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.


    chainsaw


    Mar 14, 2007, 12:44 PM
    Post #91 of 202 (4161 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Mar 1, 2007
    Posts: 37

    Re: [kr0g3r] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    kr0g3r wrote:
    chainsaw wrote:
    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.

    I know, that's some pretty funny shit. They were just like, "fuck it, let's go bouldering." I heard Hitler was vying for the FA of Karma but he was too busy taking over the world and stuff.


    curt


    Mar 14, 2007, 7:00 PM
    Post #92 of 202 (4145 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [chainsaw] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

     
    chainsaw wrote:
    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.

    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."

    chainsaw wrote:
    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.

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

    chainsaw wrote:
    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.

    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.

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

    Curt


    curt


    Mar 14, 2007, 7:22 PM
    Post #93 of 202 (4138 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    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? Is Pluto still a planet?

    Curt


    fracture


    Mar 14, 2007, 11:10 PM
    Post #94 of 202 (4125 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    curt wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    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?

    "Incorrectly?" Quit assuming your conclusion, Curt.

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


    (This post was edited by fracture on Mar 15, 2007, 12:39 AM)


    dhaulagiri


    Mar 15, 2007, 5:34 AM
    Post #95 of 202 (4107 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Sep 29, 2003
    Posts: 236

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    you guys really need to find something else to do with your free time...


    kr0g3r


    Mar 15, 2007, 7:31 AM
    Post #96 of 202 (4102 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 3, 2006
    Posts: 142

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post


    excellent link curt. probably the only good to come out of this arguement.


    Partner camhead


    Mar 15, 2007, 8:29 AM
    Post #97 of 202 (4088 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Sep 9, 2001
    Posts: 20939

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    curt wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    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?

    "Incorrectly?" Quit assuming your conclusion, Curt.

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

    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.

    You both know that.

    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.

    pwned.


    chainsaw


    Mar 15, 2007, 8:47 AM
    Post #98 of 202 (4082 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Mar 1, 2007
    Posts: 37

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

     
    curt wrote:
    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."

    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!

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

    That's laughable Curt. I don't "think" I could "keep up with you", I "know" I could "school" you. Not to mention you haven't proven me wrong once.

    curt wrote:
    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.

    Good link, and thanks for adding it to prove my point. You don't read so well do ya Curt. 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." I think its pretty funny that you are using Gill's website to prove that Gill invented modern bouldering. That's like going to George Bush's website to prove he was the best president that ever lived. IF you knew anything about bouldering history, you would realize that the bleausards and the english were using rosin, making dynamic moves, using pads, and were bouldering for the act itself, not simply for training in the mountains. Just what is your definition of "modern" bouldering? Oh, I'm sure it is "when bouldering came to colorado." While I do believe Gill likely brought modern bouldering to America, to say he "invented" it is a stretch I doubt he is even willing to take. Don't worry though Curt, if you keep calling me names like "idiot" and "fucktard" eventually you will be right.
    The funniest thing is that you are saying I have "undeserved arrogance." Have you read any of your own posts? You seem to think you are the authority on this subject and that I couldn't keep up with you bouldering. How did you "deserve" this arrogance?


    (This post was edited by chainsaw on Mar 15, 2007, 8:50 AM)


    fracture


    Mar 15, 2007, 11:36 AM
    Post #99 of 202 (4056 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [camhead] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    camhead wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    curt wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    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?

    "Incorrectly?" Quit assuming your conclusion, Curt.

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

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

    If when you say "some routes/problems", you mean "some rating systems", then I agree. However, neither the modern YDS nor the Hueco scale are hardest-move rating systems.

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

    That may or may not have been Gill's original intent, but that is completely irrelevant to the question we are debating. And furthermore, I doubt it. Gill has said things in the past which seem like they wouldn't really jive with a perspective that discounted endurance or long climbs. For example:

    "Historically, before the introduction of crash pads in the early 1990s, bouldering was done both with and without top-ropes."

    "It goes without saying that the acceptance of sport climbing in this country spelled the effective end of the B-system, since sport climbing is, in a sense, extended (although more inconvenient and tiring) bouldering."


    In reply to:
    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.

    Wrong. The YDS was, yes, and has since changed. But the Hueco scale was explicitly designed with endurance in mind. Again, one of the earliest problems rated using it is 135' long, and the original definition says "... only the physical difficulty counts --- that is, the technicality of the moves combined with the demands on one's power and endurance." (Emphasis added.)

    You're simply factually wrong, cam. If you want to debate whether it should apply to endurance, that's one thing. But it is an unambiguous fact that does and always has.

    In reply to:
    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.

    Hah, almost. You're forgetting Flat Creek. (Ever been there?)

    But it is true that many of the sport climbs here have hard sections that aren't much longer than most "long" boulder problems, such as many problems at Hueco Tanks. But more interestingly, this is less unusual than some people pretend. Ever been to Sitting Bull Falls, for example? You can climb 90' 12c's and 12d's there without ever having to do more than a 15-move sequence before the next no hands rest! I find this is common all over the place. True endurance routes seem a lot rarer than climbs which stress power-endurance (which is what Austin sport climbers specialize in, which probably is why we tend to crush on road trips, contrary to your ribbing Wink).


    (This post was edited by fracture on Mar 15, 2007, 11:37 AM)


    curt


    Mar 15, 2007, 6:50 PM
    Post #100 of 202 (4022 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [chainsaw] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    chainsaw wrote:
    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!

    The three unrepeated problems of Holloway's are Meathook, AHR, and Slapshot. It could be that not all the world's best boulderers have tried these problems but contrary to your claim, many have--and the problems are still unrepeated after 30 years. How long do most (or any) new boulder problems go unrepeated these days?

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

    I doubt it, Cupcake. I'm willing to bet a bunch of cash that you're full of shit. How about it?

    chainsaw wrote:
    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."

    That's a matter of opinion. If I consider gymnastic type dynamic bouldering moves to constitute modern bouldering, then yes, Gill did invent it. Oh, and I normally warm-up on harder than V5.

    Curt


    (This post was edited by curt on Mar 15, 2007, 7:11 PM)


    themadmilkman


    Mar 15, 2007, 8:54 PM
    Post #101 of 202 (3818 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 21, 2006
    Posts: 510

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

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

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


    fracture


    Mar 15, 2007, 8:58 PM
    Post #102 of 202 (3817 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [themadmilkman] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    themadmilkman wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    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.


    zeke_sf


    Mar 15, 2007, 9:16 PM
    Post #103 of 202 (3810 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Apr 28, 2006
    Posts: 18730

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    themadmilkman wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    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.

    Ahhh, Linguistics, the English Department's stab at "science." Maybe I'm just biased since I was taught linguistics by a white guy who felt comfortable wearing African robes--including the hat. Fracture, promise me you'll never change...Don't worry, my ego won't shatter. It could maybe melt, however. Nobody ever takes me seriously, but 20 pages is totally feasible on this one.


    joshy8200


    Mar 15, 2007, 9:51 PM
    Post #104 of 202 (3799 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Sep 30, 2002
    Posts: 646

    Re: [zeke_sf] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    Why argue over who's the biggest chump? Pebble wrestling is dumb.


    fracture


    Mar 15, 2007, 9:58 PM
    Post #105 of 202 (3797 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [joshy8200] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    joshy8200 wrote:
    Pebble wrestling is dumb.

    In an important sense, all rock climbing is dumb. But it's a fun way of being dumb.

    And bouldering in particular is great fun. No pro, no ropes, no bullshit. It's just you, your friends, and the challenge of ascending a gymnastically difficult section of rock. If you don't like that, you don't really like climbing rocks.


    (This post was edited by fracture on Mar 15, 2007, 9:58 PM)


    jt512


    Mar 15, 2007, 10:15 PM
    Post #106 of 202 (3791 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Apr 11, 2001
    Posts: 21904

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    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....

    What is your criteria for "success" here? Because the YDS and the V-scale are merely ordinal scales. And all an ordinal scale has to do to be "successful" is to get the items it is applied to in more-or-less the right order. Clearly, then, any ordinal scale could be successfully applied to boulder problems. In fact, if you think about it, all ordinal scales are essentially equivalent, as they can be put into one-to-one correspondence with (a subset of) the natural numbers. (For ordinal scales that classify items into a limited number of categories [like the YDS or the V-scale] you can argue about how many catergories there ought to be or where the category boundaries should be drawn, but I don't think that those issues are salient to your arguments.)

    In reply to:
    You can start by telling us in what way the V-scale and the YDS are fundamentally different.

    All ordinal scales are the same in the sense that they are simply the natural numbers disguised with window dressing. So, the question isn't whether the scales are the same, but whether the set that they are being applied to is the same. You have to ask yourself if bouldering and sport climbing (say) are "the same," or at least close enough that the difficulty of a boulder problem can be sensibly compared to the difficulty of a sport route. Or, on the other hand, is bouldering difficulty a different type of difficulty than sport climbing difficulty. I'm going to claim that they are actually quite different, for if they were not (that is, if they were highly comparable), then a person who participates in one activity exclusively should be able to participate in the other activity at the same level (relative to other participants in that activity), with no specific additional training.

    Take two groups of climbers: one which only boulders and one which only sport climbs. If the two activities are highly similar, then a person in the sport climbing group who climbs at, say, the median level of the sport climbing group, should be able to boulder, with no additional training, at the median level of the bouldering group. Clearly, this will generally not be the case, because the sport climber will not have the high-end strength necessary to boulder at a comparable level. Thus, the two activities are distinctly different, and therefore it makes no sense to argue about whether they should be rated with the same scale. The fact is, they can't be: it's like asking whether you can rate performance on the MCAT on the same scale as performance in bouldering. You can't; they're too different. Even if you apply the same scale (eg, the integers from 1 to 15, perhaps prefixed with a superfluous "5." or "V") you are rating two different things. Say you rate a 10-bolt sport route 5.12a, and a 10-move boulder problem 5.12a, in what sense, if any, are they equally difficult? If you can't find a way to equate 5.12a sport climbing difficulty with 5.12a bouldering difficulty, then you have nothing to argue about, because any attempt to rate them "on the same scale" is meaningless.

    Jay


    curt


    Mar 15, 2007, 10:37 PM
    Post #107 of 202 (3788 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    joshy8200 wrote:
    Pebble wrestling is dumb.

    In an important sense, all rock climbing is dumb. But it's a fun way of being dumb.

    And bouldering in particular is great fun. No pro, no ropes, no bullshit. It's just you, your friends, and the challenge of ascending a gymnastically difficult section of rock. If you don't like that, you don't really like climbing rocks.

    How odd, we agree on some stuff.

    Curt


    joshy8200


    Mar 15, 2007, 10:49 PM
    Post #108 of 202 (3781 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Sep 30, 2002
    Posts: 646

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    No pro, no ropes, no bullshit. It's just you, your friends, and the challenge of ascending a gymnastically difficult section of rock.

    Bouldering...little rocks, little boys, all bullshit. All about ascending a 'gymnastically difficult section of rock?' More like all about having a circle jerk around a pebble.


    curt


    Mar 15, 2007, 11:05 PM
    Post #109 of 202 (3776 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [joshy8200] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    joshy8200 wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    No pro, no ropes, no bullshit. It's just you, your friends, and the challenge of ascending a gymnastically difficult section of rock.

    Bouldering...little rocks, little boys, all bullshit. All about ascending a 'gymnastically difficult section of rock?' More like all about having a circle jerk around a pebble.

    Spoken like a true 5.4 climber.

    Curt


    joshy8200


    Mar 15, 2007, 11:11 PM
    Post #110 of 202 (3773 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Sep 30, 2002
    Posts: 646

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    curt wrote:
    Spoken like a true 5.4 climber.

    Curt

    That's all you got for a comeback? Please go eat the cookie now.


    curt


    Mar 15, 2007, 11:17 PM
    Post #111 of 202 (3771 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [joshy8200] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    joshy8200 wrote:
    curt wrote:
    Spoken like a true 5.4 climber.

    Curt

    That's all you got for a comeback? Please go eat the cookie now.

    Try the "community" forum here. It's for people like you who don't actually climb, but want to tangentially associate with real climbers, for whatever reason.

    Curt


    joshy8200


    Mar 15, 2007, 11:26 PM
    Post #112 of 202 (3764 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Sep 30, 2002
    Posts: 646

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    curt wrote:
    Try the "community" forum here. It's for people like you who don't actually climb, but want to tangentially associate with real climbers, for whatever reason.

    So there are real climbers in the "Community" forum that I can chat with? Because you aren't a real climber?


    curt


    Mar 15, 2007, 11:29 PM
    Post #113 of 202 (3761 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [joshy8200] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    joshy8200 wrote:
    curt wrote:
    Try the "community" forum here. It's for people like you who don't actually climb, but want to tangentially associate with real climbers, for whatever reason.

    So there are real climbers in the "Community" forum that I can chat with? Because you aren't a real climber?

    Well, that certainly follows logically, doesn't it?

    Curt


    joshy8200


    Mar 15, 2007, 11:38 PM
    Post #114 of 202 (3757 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Sep 30, 2002
    Posts: 646

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    curt wrote:

    Well, that certainly follows logically, doesn't it?

    About as logically as calling me a 5.4 climber...How would you know?

    And about as logical as saying I 'don't actually' climb...How would you know?

    Your logic has astounded me.


    curt


    Mar 16, 2007, 12:20 AM
    Post #115 of 202 (3750 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [joshy8200] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    joshy8200 wrote:
    curt wrote:

    Well, that certainly follows logically, doesn't it?

    About as logically as calling me a 5.4 climber...How would you know?

    And about as logical as saying I 'don't actually' climb...How would you know?

    Your logic has astounded me.

    As most things do, no doubt.

    Curt


    chainsaw


    Mar 16, 2007, 8:35 AM
    Post #116 of 202 (3722 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Mar 1, 2007
    Posts: 37

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    curt wrote:
    The three unrepeated problems of Holloway's are Meathook, AHR, and Slapshot. It could be that not all the world's best boulderers have tried these problems but contrary to your claim, many have--and the problems are still unrepeated after 30 years. How long do most (or any) new boulder problems go unrepeated these days?
    Once again you have proven my point Curt.

    Meathook = reach problem
    AHR = reach problem
    Slapshot = reach problem

    Many new boulder problems go unrepeated if they are obscure or at obscure areas. Take many of Fred Nicole's problems in Switzerland, Klem's problems in Austria, etc. Again, Obscure areas, few or no repeats on the hardest problems there.
    Wait, many of the worlds best boulderers have tried these problems? Like who? How about any of the worlds best boulderers that are 6'5" with a massive ape index?
    p.s. Ben has recently done the hardest boulder problems of his life, so how could he have been "in his prime" as you say?

    curt wrote:
    I doubt it, Cupcake. I'm willing to bet a bunch of cash that you're full of shit. How about it?

    When you say "a bunch of cash" how much are we talkin here Curt, it may be worth it for me to put you in your place. Trust me Curt, I have climbed way harder than you in every genre except maybe aid, you are in too deep. At least I've gone from a fucktard to cupcake, kind of endearing.

    curt wrote:
    That's a matter of opinion. If I consider gymnastic type dynamic bouldering moves to constitute modern bouldering, then yes, Gill did invent it. Oh, and I normally warm-up on harder than V5.

    Once again your "opinion" is just wrong. Have you even read anything on the website you linked to to prove your point? Please read again section on British climbing and French climbing and see who was actually doing gymnastic style dynamic moves first. Even Gill states he was likely the first IN AMERICA.
    Oh, and I was talking about REAL V5's Curt. Are you really saying that anything V5 and below is just "5.10 scrambling?" I'll make sure and let everyone who is climbing V5 and below that they are not actually bouldering, in the modern sense. I wonder why Gill and Sherman refer to so many problems below that grade as "boulder problems?" Maybe you should straighten them out on that Curt, since you are such an authority.


    (This post was edited by chainsaw on Mar 16, 2007, 5:02 PM)


    fracture


    Mar 16, 2007, 11:00 AM
    Post #117 of 202 (3707 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [jt512] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    jt512 wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    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....

    What is your criteria for "success" here?

    I'm glad you asked. A successful climbing rating system must do the following:
  • Facilitate determining which area(s) to go to at a crag you are unfamiliar with. (Saves massive hiking time!)
  • Help climbers track their progress as they improve and help them be more systematic about training.
  • Help you decide whether to project a given climb, or to move to something more realistic. Basically: how many tries should you give it before moving on.
  • Assist in determining whether your first attempt on a climb should be redpoint-mode (hangdogging) or whether you should go for a flash or onsight.
  • Assist in finding adequate warm up routes that won't flash-pump you and waste your day.

    The V-scale and (the modern) YDS both can and have done this successfully for bouldering. (And, I'd mention as an aside, that the B-scale is unsuccessful on a number of these points, because you have to know what year the problem was put up to know what the rating means, and the rating "B3" says nothing about how hard it is.)

    In reply to:
    Because the YDS and the V-scale are merely ordinal scales. And all an ordinal scale has to do to be "successful" is to get the items it is applied to in more-or-less the right order. Clearly, then, any ordinal scale could be successfully applied to boulder problems. In fact, if you think about it, all ordinal scales are essentially equivalent, as they can be put into one-to-one correspondence with (a subset of) the natural numbers. (For ordinal scales that classify items into a limited number of categories [like the YDS or the V-scale] you can argue about how many catergories there ought to be or where the category boundaries should be drawn, but I don't think that those issues are salient to your arguments.)

    The YDS and the V-scale are more than just series of numbers. There is a meaning attached to them. For example, the original YDS (the Tahquitz DS) described the hardest-move only: still an ordinal scale, but unlike the V-scale it is not "equivalent" in any meaningful sense to the modern YDS.

    In reply to:
    Take two groups of climbers: one which only boulders and one which only sport climbs. If the two activities are highly similar, then a person in the sport climbing group who climbs at, say, the median level of the sport climbing group, should be able to boulder, with no additional training, at the median level of the bouldering group. Clearly, this will generally not be the case, because the sport climber will not have the high-end strength necessary to boulder at a comparable level.

    Far from "clearly", I think. It depends on the types of climbing in the area. If you do this in an area that primarily has both power-endurance ("long") boulder problems and power-endurance ("short") sport routes, you'll probably get different results. Furthermore, your results will easily be prone to misleading interpretations if you don't consider the need for people to adjust to the new protection system. Many rope-only climbers are afraid of bouldering falls, and vice versa.

    But moreover, if you take the median sport climber from an enduro area, and bring them here to Austin, do you think they'll keep up on our PE and power climbs with no additional training? It's all roped, it's all YDS, and it's all sport climbing. So what you're suggesting really has nothing to do with the question of whether boulder problems and sport routes are comparable: rather, it's the issue of whether any routes are comparable at all. (Or at least, whether those which stress different energy systems are.)

    In reply to:
    Say you rate a 10-bolt sport route 5.12a, and a 10-move boulder problem 5.12a, in what sense, if any, are they equally difficult?

    Why, in the same sense that a 10-move 5.12a sport route (and I've seen the like at every crag I've ever climbed at) and a 10-bolt 5.12a sport route are, of course. (And what exactly that sense is is certainly up for discussion.)


    (This post was edited by fracture on Mar 16, 2007, 11:24 AM)


  • jt512


    Mar 16, 2007, 3:58 PM
    Post #118 of 202 (3672 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Apr 11, 2001
    Posts: 21904

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    jt512 wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    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....

    What is your criteria for "success" here?

    I'm glad you asked. A successful climbing rating system must do the following:
  • Facilitate determining which area(s) to go to at a crag you are unfamiliar with. (Saves massive hiking time!)
  • Help climbers track their progress as they improve and help them be more systematic about training.
  • Help you decide whether to project a given climb, or to move to something more realistic. Basically: how many tries should you give it before moving on.
  • Assist in determining whether your first attempt on a climb should be redpoint-mode (hangdogging) or whether you should go for a flash or onsight.
  • Assist in finding adequate warm up routes that won't flash-pump you and waste your day.

  • You've managed to use a whole lot of words to simply say that the rating should tell you how hard the route is.

    In reply to:
    The V-scale and (the modern) YDS both can and have done this successfully for bouldering.

    Right, because they are both ordinal scales. You could just as easily MCAT scores, (which just happen to be the integers from 1 to 15 -- ring a bell?).

    In reply to:
    Because the YDS and the V-scale are merely ordinal scales. And all an ordinal scale has to do to be "successful" is to get the items it is applied to in more-or-less the right order. Clearly, then, any ordinal scale could be successfully applied to boulder problems. In fact, if you think about it, all ordinal scales are essentially equivalent, as they can be put into one-to-one correspondence with (a subset of) the natural numbers. (For ordinal scales that classify items into a limited number of categories [like the YDS or the V-scale] you can argue about how many catergories there ought to be or where the category boundaries should be drawn, but I don't think that those issues are salient to your arguments.)

    Take two groups of climbers: one which only boulders and one which only sport climbs. If the two activities are highly similar, then a person in the sport climbing group who climbs at, say, the median level of the sport climbing group, should be able to boulder, with no additional training, at the median level of the bouldering group. Clearly, this will generally not be the case, because the sport climber will not have the high-end strength necessary to boulder at a comparable level.

    Far from "clearly", I think. It depends on the types of climbing in the area. If you do this in an area that primarily has both power-endurance ("long") boulder problems and power-endurance ("short") sport routes, you'll probably get different results. Furthermore, your results will easily be prone to misleading interpretations if you don't consider the need for people to adjust to the new protection system. Many rope-only climbers are afraid of bouldering falls, and vice versa.
    It's very difficult to discuss subjects with you when you insist on clouding the central issue with trivial side issues.

    In reply to:
    But moreover, if you take the median sport climber from an enduro area, and bring them here to Austin, do you think they'll keep up on our PE and power climbs with no additional training? It's all roped, it's all YDS, and it's all sport climbing. So what you're suggesting really has nothing to do with the question of whether boulder problems and sport routes are comparable: rather, it's the issue of whether any routes are comparable at all. (Or at least, whether those which stress different energy systems are.)

    It has everything to do with whether boulder problems and sport routes are difficult in the same way. On average, they are not, despite all the exceptions, outliers, and borderline cases you can and will state. A serious (arguably fatal) limitation to the YDS to anyone who has studiesd how to devise scales is that the YDS takes heterogeneous dimensions of difficulty (power, endurance, technical demands, etc) and tries to come up with a single difficulty score. This results in a loss of information. You don't know from the rating whether a 5.12a route requires 5.12a power, endurance, balance, or what. If two routes are given the same rating, then they should be equally difficult. But in what sense is a 5.12a slab the same difficulty as an overhanging 5.12a power route? How can such disparate routes even be rated on the same scale? So, the application of the YDS to disparate routes is a serious problem. Furthermore, the more disparate the set of items to which the scale is applied, the more information that is lost, and the worse the problem is. Extending the YDS to boulder problems exacerbates the problem.

    Your argument that since the YDS already applies to many different types of difficulty on routes justifies its extension to boulder problems is essentially arguing that two wrongs make a right. Since boulder problems are a more homogeneous set than boulder problems plus routes, giving boulder problems and routes separate rating scales improves the information relative to rating them on the same artificially one-dimensional scale. It's hard to see how that can be worse than extending the problems of the YDS to boulder problems.

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    Say you rate a 10-bolt sport route 5.12a, and a 10-move boulder problem 5.12a, in what sense, if any, are they equally difficult?

    Why, in the same sense that a 10-move 5.12a sport route (and I've seen the like at every crag I've ever climbed at) and a 10-bolt 5.12a sport route are, of course. (And what exactly that sense is is certainly up for discussion.)

    Exactly. In what sense is that? It is very difficult to justify the same rating system for such disparate routes, let alone extending it to boulder problems.

    Jay


    (This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 16, 2007, 6:03 PM)


    quiteatingmysteak


    Mar 16, 2007, 4:37 PM
    Post #119 of 202 (3662 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Dec 15, 2004
    Posts: 804

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    curt wrote:

    I doubt it, Cupcake. I'm willing to bet a bunch of cash that you're full of shit. How about it?


    ...


    That's a matter of opinion. If I consider gymnastic type dynamic bouldering moves to constitute modern bouldering, then yes, Gill did invent it. Oh, and I normally warm-up on harder than V5.

    Curt




    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humility

    Your a great climber and have done stuff most of us would like to scratch at. While your peers are icons and legends in our culture you will remain a forgotten troll. I wish your legacy was more, curt, but you carved it yourself.



    the best boulderer is the one that climbs hard and doesn't use it as ammo on a forum.


    fracture


    Mar 16, 2007, 6:13 PM
    Post #120 of 202 (3648 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [jt512] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    jt512 wrote:
    You've managed to use a whole lot of words to simply say that the rating should tell you how hard the route is.

    Of course grades tell you how hard something is, my point is that there are very good reasons to want to know that. This isn't academic: many of today's climbers who pretend they "don't care about numbers" have forgotten these other sources of utility.

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    The V-scale and (the modern) YDS both can and have done this successfully for bouldering.

    Right, because they are both ordinal scales. You could just as easily MCAT scores, (which just happen to be the integers from 1 to 15 -- ring a bell?).

    You can use any whole-picture, difficulty-only rock climbing rating system in the same way. Other systems can perhaps be used to rate the same climbs, but you would be rating different aspects of them.

    Really, the question is about what you are using the system to rate. If you treat the numbers from MCAT scores as a whole-picture, difficulty-only climbing grading scale, then yes, it can rate boulder problems. But then it wouldn't really be MCAT scores, it'd just be yet another face for the V/YDS/Font/French/Australian/UIAA/etc scales.

    Or maybe you agree with this? (In which case, I don't understand what you're trying to say.)

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    Far from "clearly", I think. It depends on the types of climbing in the area. If you do this in an area that primarily has both power-endurance ("long") boulder problems and power-endurance ("short") sport routes, you'll probably get different results. Furthermore, your results will easily be prone to misleading interpretations if you don't consider the need for people to adjust to the new protection system. Many rope-only climbers are afraid of bouldering falls, and vice versa.

    It's very difficult to discuss subjects with you when you insist on clouding the central issue with trivial side issues.

    This is not a side issue, it's my home crag and my favorite type of climbing! And as I keep stressing, power and power-endurance sport routes are not rare. Every crag I've ever been to has tons of them. (This includes "endurance" areas like Enchanted Tower, Last Chance Canyon, and El Potrero Chico.)

    In reply to:
    It has everything to do with whether boulder problems and sport routes are difficult in the same way. On average, they are not, despite all the exceptions, outliers, and borderline cases you can and will state.

    This is our point of disagreement. Perhaps we need to go survey sport crags to see the exact distribution of routes which stress which energy systems. Maybe your area only has sport routes that stress local endurance, but even that I find doubtful, based on my experience at pretty much every other sport area I've climbed at.

    In reply to:
    Your argument that since the YDS already applies to many different types of difficulty on routes justifies its extension to boulder problems is essentially arguing that two wrongs make a right. Since boulder problems are a more homogeneous set than boulder problems plus routes, giving boulder problems and routes separate rating scales improves the information relative to crating them on the same artificially one-dimensional scale. It's hard to see how that can be worse than extending the problems of the YDS to boulder problems.

    Far from two wrongs making a right: as used, the YDS works! It may not be objective or accurate in a scientific sense, and it may assign equivalent grades to routes that require vastly different skills (even when they stress the same energy systems, as you point out with slabs), but it still serves all the purposes I listed. So what's the Big Deal? It doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.

    The information loss is a feature, not a bug. A rating system has to abstract all those details (to some degree or another) in order to be useful. Especially if we want it to come out as a one-dimensional scale (which gives a host of useful properties contra the multi-dimensional systems).

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    Say you rate a 10-bolt sport route 5.12a, and a 10-move boulder problem 5.12a, in what sense, if any, are they equally difficult?

    Why, in the same sense that a 10-move 5.12a sport route (and I've seen the like at every crag I've ever climbed at) and a 10-bolt 5.12a sport route are, of course. (And what exactly that sense is is certainly up for discussion.)

    Exactly. In what sense is that? It is very difficult to justify the same rating system for such disparate routes, let alone extending it to boulder problems.

    You probably cannot justify it based on any precise conception of what "climbing difficulty" means: rock climbing is likely too complex of an activity for that. But it is justifiable: by its real-world utility, which I think is readily apparent.

    Now, Curt has been arguing that the V-scale should not be applied to long boulder problems. And it is starting to sound like you are arguing that the YDS shouldn't be applied to short sport routes. Is that correct?

    Here's my simplistic (read: likely incorrect, but somewhat humorous) analysis of why: Curt primarily boulders on short, powerful problems. He doesn't want to grant the "bouldering" status to long problems because he thinks of it as a separate activity. You probably primarily enjoy long local endurance climbs, and similarly don't want to do the opposite.

    And me? I am a power-endurance specialist. I like to do somewhere around 12 or 15 moves before the "business" is over. So in a sense I'm in the middle, since there are both roped and unroped climbs that fit the bill. I see it all as one unified game, with differences in the details (and in the optimal protection system). Yes, some climbs require more power or more endurance, but some climbs also require more drop knees or better skill with dynos or greater strength on a given type of hand hold (and strength is position-specific, so we have as much a right to declare "5.12a crimping" unrateable by the same grading scale as "5.12a slopers" as we do for "power" and "endurance").

    You could say, yes you're right, and those are all more "wrongs" that don't justify another one. But again, the justification is from the utility. If you split the YDS into a myriad of systems (YDS-power-slopers, YDS-power-endurance-to-dyno, YDS-local-endurance-crimping, YDS-gaston-sloper-power-endurance), you'd lose every advantage to having a unified (information-lossy) scale in the first place. We might as well just give up on all the useful aspects of grades and limit ourselves to the descriptions in plain English.


    (This post was edited by fracture on Mar 16, 2007, 6:32 PM)


    themadmilkman


    Mar 16, 2007, 7:04 PM
    Post #121 of 202 (3636 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 21, 2006
    Posts: 510

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    themadmilkman wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    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.

    I have studied linguistics, thank you very much. And I am certainly not an ignorant moron. And I hold my ground, as well. Walking into a courtroom believing that a word ALWAYS has a certain meaning would lead to an ego-shattering by the opposing counsel that would have very dire consequences.


    jt512


    Mar 16, 2007, 7:14 PM
    Post #122 of 202 (3636 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Apr 11, 2001
    Posts: 21904

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    You probably cannot justify it based on any precise conception of what "climbing difficulty" means: rock climbing is likely too complex of an activity for that. But it is justifiable: by its real-world utility, which I think is readily apparent.

    The only reason the ratings have any utility is that we consciously or unconsciously supplement the rating with other information. If all you knew was the rating, unless you were an extremely well-rounded climber, you wouldn't have a very good idea at all about your chances of onsighting a route (assuming it is nominally graded around your onsight limit). I would attempt to redpoint a 5.12a route at Echo Cliffs, because the moves on many routes are easy to read. If you can endure, you can onsight at Echo. But 5.12a at Williamson? Forget it. The moves are too weird.

    In reply to:
    Now, Curt has been arguing that the V-scale should not be applied to long boulder problems. And it is starting to sound like you are arguing that the YDS shouldn't be applied to short sport routes. Is that correct?

    I'm not arguing any should or should nots. But if you want to maximize the meaningfulness and usefulness of the ratings, then you keep the sets being rated as homogeneous as possible. This would be accomplished by rating short powerful routes/problems with the V-scale, and longer routes/problems with the YDS scale.

    In reply to:
    I am a power-endurance specialist. I like to do somewhere around 12 or 15 moves before the "business" is over. So in a sense I'm in the middle, since there are both roped and unroped climbs that fit the bill. I see it all as one unified game, with differences in the details (and in the optimal protection system).

    If you restrict consideration to the subset of problems and routes with the maximum communality, then it doesn't matter which rating system you use - either scale will suffice. But, as you expand the set to include the whole range of routes and boulder problems, it becomes more informative to use different scales. If you think you can rate the average-length sport climb and the average-length boulder problem on the same scale, you're just fooling yourself, because there is no meaningful way to compare their difficulty (except one very general way, which no one has yet mentioned).

    In reply to:
    You could say, yes you're right, and those are all more "wrongs" that don't justify another one. But again, the justification is from the utility. If you split the YDS into a myriad of systems (YDS-power-slopers, YDS-power-endurance-to-dyno, YDS-local-endurance-crimping, YDS-gaston-sloper-power-endurance), you'd lose every advantage to having a unified (information-lossy) scale in the first place. We might as well just give up on all the useful aspects of grades and limit ourselves to the descriptions in plain English.

    If you think about it, without additional information about the route, the rating says very little. When we look at a route, we do refine the rating based on the characteristics of the route. There's no way I'd even get on a 5.12a off-width crack, or lead a runout 5.12a slab. But if I looked at a long, gently overhanging 5.12a crimp ladder, I'd try to onsight on it. The rating itself doesn't mean that much; in fact, it can be completely overshadowed by the character of the route.

    Jay


    fracture


    Mar 16, 2007, 7:25 PM
    Post #123 of 202 (3633 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [themadmilkman] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    themadmilkman wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    themadmilkman wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    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.

    I have studied linguistics, thank you very much. And I am certainly not an ignorant moron. And I hold my ground, as well. Walking into a courtroom believing that a word ALWAYS has a certain meaning would lead to an ego-shattering by the opposing counsel that would have very dire consequences.

    Ok. Do you mean that words are often redefined for use as jargon in specialized contexts? If so, 100% agreed.

    (And when the jargon lasts longer than a single piece of writing, or whatever, as it does in our legal system, then it becomes identifiably separate senses of the word, which fits in with the intended meaning (but not the wording) of my original statement.)


    (This post was edited by fracture on Mar 16, 2007, 7:48 PM)


    fracture


    Mar 16, 2007, 7:44 PM
    Post #124 of 202 (3626 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [jt512] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    jt512 wrote:
    I'm not arguing any should or should nots. But if you want to maximize the meaningfulness and usefulness of the ratings, then you keep the sets being rated as homogeneous as possible. This would be accomplished by rating short powerful routes/problems with the V-scale, and longer routes/problems with the YDS scale.

    I think I agree with everything in your post except this point. I think the utility is based precisely on the fact that it abstracts over such disparate types of climbing, thereby avoiding a combinatorial explosion of rating systems. (Primary hold type x energy system x protection system x ...)

    But I couldn't agree more when you say a YDS number by itself doesn't mean much. The context is important. As you say, at one crag you might try to onsight a 5.12a, and at another you might decide to go for a 2nd or 3rd go redpoint. At one crag, you might learn that the harder routes tend to have better holds (but are steeper and longer), while at other crags the super hard stuff might be about insane micro-crimping power moves.

    Similarly, at some crags (and you can probably figure it out based on English descriptions in a guidebook), you might expect a 5.12a to have moves as hard as V4, while at another you might be surprised if you find anything harder than V1. And every crag will presumably (or hopefully) have at least some range within its norms.

    The point I'm trying to argue is: we don't really lose anything by using the grading systems across such a range of climbs, because the ratings are, as you rightly point out, only useful in context. The context can make up for the downsides of the information loss.

    In reply to:
    If you think about it, without additional information about the route, the rating says very little. When we look at a route, we do refine the rating based on the characteristics of the route. There's no way I'd even get on a 5.12a off-width crack, or lead a runout 5.12a slab. But if I looked at a long, gently overhanging 5.12a crimp ladder, I'd try to onsight on it. The rating itself doesn't mean that much; in fact, it can be completely overshadowed by the character of the route.

    An interesting question here is whether the ratings can be (or in fact actually are) useful without being meaningful.

    If ratings mean anything, it seems to me that they must describe some sort of subjective measurement of the athletic performance required by the climber. This means that ratings are ideally climber-relative, but, due to the fact that everyone has a highly similar basis for that athletic performance (we're all human) much of that relativity can often be ignored in favor of increased general utility. At edges, however, it doesn't always work perfectly: the issue comes to a head in particular with short, height-dependent boulder problems, which some have argued really deserve multiple grades (based on the climber's height): obviously dynos from good holds to good holds are easier for tall people, and (perhaps less obviously) non-reachy problems with bad holds are easier if you are short.

    Now, how to formulate that in a way that let's us rest in complete satisfaction that the grades have some "meaning" is difficult. (But fortunately, we can all keep using these systems regardless of exactly how we want to answer this particular issue because it is an observable fact that, in practice, these systems actually do do some useful work.)


    (This post was edited by fracture on Mar 16, 2007, 8:10 PM)


    jt512


    Mar 16, 2007, 8:38 PM
    Post #125 of 202 (3606 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Apr 11, 2001
    Posts: 21904

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    Now, how to formulate that in a way that let's us rest in complete satisfaction that the grades have some "meaning" is difficult. (But fortunately, we can all keep using these systems regardless of exactly how we want to answer this particular issue because it is an observable fact that, in practice, these systems actually do do some useful work.)

    The point I am trying to make is that it is pure illusion that there is one YDS scale. If there were, all I would need to know about a route to know how hard I will find it is the rating. This is not the case. 5.12a offwidth has nothing whatsoever in common with 5.12a slab. You can make no meaningful comparison of such routes. So, whether you consciously recognize it or not, you have here two different YDS scales: one for off-widths, another for slabs. That there is utility in using the same system (a "5." prefix, followed by an integer and possibly a letter) is an illusion. Since their difficulty cannot be compared, they are rated on different scales, even though the scales have the same superficial structure. Having a superficially uniform rating system has the illusion of greater utility only because we consciously or unconsciously transform the scale based on the characteristics of the route and our knowledge of how well we climb that type of route. But it is pure illusion that the a 5.12a slab climb is any way the same difficulty as a 5.12a offwidth. There is no utility to rating them on the same scale. You might as well call them S-7 and O-9, or S-9 and O-7, because there is no way to compare the routes' in difficulty. If you still believe that there is utility in rating routes of completely different character using the same system (we can't say "same scale" because the similarity is just an artifact of the similar structure of the two scales), then explicitly state what that utility is, rather than just saying that there must be utility because the system is in use and so there must be utility.

    Jay


    curt


    Mar 16, 2007, 10:02 PM
    Post #126 of 202 (3830 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [quiteatingmysteak] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    quiteatingmysteak wrote:
    curt wrote:

    I doubt it, Cupcake. I'm willing to bet a bunch of cash that you're full of shit. How about it?


    ...


    That's a matter of opinion. If I consider gymnastic type dynamic bouldering moves to constitute modern bouldering, then yes, Gill did invent it. Oh, and I normally warm-up on harder than V5.

    Curt




    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humility

    Your a great climber and have done stuff most of us would like to scratch at. While your peers are icons and legends in our culture you will remain a forgotten troll. I wish your legacy was more, curt, but you carved it yourself.

    My legacy? I already have the respect of anyone who matters to me. Certainly, anyone who I only "know" through some internet site would not be in that group.

    Curt


    curt


    Mar 16, 2007, 11:08 PM
    Post #127 of 202 (3822 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [chainsaw] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    chainsaw wrote:
    Meathook = reach problem
    AHR = reach problem
    Slapshot = reach problem

    You obviously have no personal knowledge of these problems. Neither Meathook nor AHR are reach problems. Please reference Chris Jones' comments on these problems in Pat Ament's book: The History of Free Climbing in America.

    chainsaw wrote:
    When you say "a bunch of cash" how much are we talkin here Curt, it may be worth it for me to put you in your place. Trust me Curt, I have climbed way harder than you in every genre except maybe aid, you are in too deep. At least I've gone from a fucktard to cupcake, kind of endearing.

    Yes, I'm becoming quite fond of you--if for no other reason than your misguided persistence. Can I assume then, since I am both old--and that you climb "way harder" than I, that you will allow me to pick the place to settle this? Feel free to name the dollar amount, but please be able to actually bring that amount in cash.

    chainsaw wrote:
    ...I wonder why Gill and Sherman refer to so many problems below that grade as "boulder problems?" Maybe you should straighten them out on that Curt, since you are such an authority.

    I may not understand Gill's definition of bouldering perfectly, as he has only been a bouldering partner of mine for 25 years or so. However, as best I recall, Gill defined B1 as where "real bouldering" started--and that level approximated the hardest moves being done on roped routes. B2 was harder than that.

    Curt


    fracture


    Mar 17, 2007, 5:33 PM
    Post #128 of 202 (3790 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [jt512] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    jt512 wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    Now, how to formulate that in a way that let's us rest in complete satisfaction that the grades have some "meaning" is difficult. (But fortunately, we can all keep using these systems regardless of exactly how we want to answer this particular issue because it is an observable fact that, in practice, these systems actually do do some useful work.)

    The point I am trying to make is that it is pure illusion that there is one YDS scale. If there were, all I would need to know about a route to know how hard I will find it is the rating. This is not the case. 5.12a offwidth has nothing whatsoever in common with 5.12a slab. You can make no meaningful comparison of such routes. So, whether you consciously recognize it or not, you have here two different YDS scales: one for off-widths, another for slabs. That there is utility in using the same system (a "5." prefix, followed by an integer and possibly a letter) is an illusion.

    Well, not quite. Under the line of thinking you have, there is actually not even just one scale for slabs. Or one scale for overhangs. Or even just one scale for dynos or just one scale for slopers. You end up with the combinatorial explosion I mentioned. Taken to an extreme, the end result would be one grading system per route per climber.

    Are you seriously claiming that that is preferable to our current, information-lossy, but extremely useful system? You say the utility is illusory---if that is the case, I presume you disagree that as used, grades help climbers in the ways I listed earlier. Is that really what you're arguing?

    In reply to:
    [..] But it is pure illusion that the a 5.12a slab climb is any way the same difficulty as a 5.12a offwidth. There is no utility to rating them on the same scale.

    The second sentence does not follow from the first. I think grades can be pragmatically useful without being meaningful in some sort of objective sense.

    In reply to:
    If you still believe that there is utility in rating routes of completely different character using the same system (we can't say "same scale" because the similarity is just an artifact of the similar structure of the two scales), then explicitly state what that utility is, rather than just saying that there must be utility because the system is in use and so there must be utility.

    I've already explicitly stated what that utility is.

    And I claim that the existence of those types of utility is an observable fact. Case in point: when I road trip to new areas, I use grades to help me decide what is worth hiking to, what to project, and what to use as a warmup. Unless you feel like saying I'm mistaken about my own decision-making in this area, this point is probably indisputable (though if you are feeling like making extremely outlandish claims, you could try to argue that the way I use grades is atypical.)


    (This post was edited by fracture on Mar 17, 2007, 6:08 PM)


    jt512


    Mar 20, 2007, 9:16 AM
    Post #129 of 202 (3748 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Apr 11, 2001
    Posts: 21904

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    I don't think you've understood a single point I have tried to make in this discussion. Perhaps that is my fault, as I assume that everybody thinks like a statistician.

    To get back to the point I was trying to address, the question was whether it made more sense to give long, traversing boulder problems a YDS grade or a V-grade. If you think that the grade should mean something compared with other climbs rated on the same scale, then it makes more sense to give long boulder problems a YDS grade. Then it would be reasonable to expect that a 5.12a long boulder problem would be similar in difficulty to a 5.12a roped route. Attempting to give a long boulder problem a V-grade results in what? I don't know. In what sense would a long endurance V6 be comparable in difficulty to a typical-length power-oriented V6? Please don't answer my question with another question. Just answer the question plainly if you can.

    Jay


    bob_54b


    Mar 20, 2007, 9:33 AM
    Post #130 of 202 (3746 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: May 18, 2006
    Posts: 64

    Re: [munky] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    munky wrote:
    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.
    In reply to:

    I wonder if is mainly just more weight to throw around on really tiny holds...I'm 6'4" and 180# and can't even touch a lot of these things the shorter and lighter guys can do. Of course these guys in Lander like Alan Pierry, Vance White, and Steve Bechtel are pretty amazing (vote for Alan as an amazing boulderer). I do have a terrific advantage on thin slabby problems where I can utilize the reach but these shorter and lighter guys really get it on the very technical steep jobs: high strength to weight ratio I think...............


    fracture


    Mar 20, 2007, 10:29 AM
    Post #131 of 202 (3733 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [jt512] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    jt512 wrote:
    To get back to the point I was trying to address, the question was whether it made more sense to give long, traversing boulder problems a YDS grade or a V-grade. If you think that the grade should mean something compared with other climbs rated on the same scale, then it makes more sense to give long boulder problems a YDS grade.

    That makes no sense. For all intents and purposes, the YDS and the V-scale are the same scale, just with different spellings. They are used to subjectively measure the same things. (As you pointed out, you could even use MCAT numbers as one of these scales.) Comparing a route rated on the V-scale with a route rated on the YDS makes precisely the same amount of sense---and has the same "meaning", whatever that happens to be---as comparing one route rated on the YDS with another rated on the YDS.

    I have not been claiming to know what that meaning is. However, it is indisputable that these scales are useful, even if they aren't meaningful. Perhaps the meaning is some sort of theoretical utility (like a center of gravity or any other fictional but useful entity). I don't know.

    In reply to:
    Attempting to give a long boulder problem a V-grade results in what? I don't know.

    But maybe if you bouldered more you would know: it results in the status quo. (In the status quo, the deciding factor on which scale to use is based on a detail of the protection system.)

    In reply to:
    In what sense would a long endurance V6 be comparable in difficulty to a typical-length power-oriented V6? Please don't answer my question with another question. Just answer the question plainly if you can.

    I can't, but it is an irrelevant question. As I keep pointing out, you have the same issues solely within the YDS, or within any of the other members of this class of grading scales. (And the length of the climb is not the only thing that raises these issues.)


    jt512


    Mar 21, 2007, 1:25 PM
    Post #132 of 202 (3699 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Apr 11, 2001
    Posts: 21904

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    jt512 wrote:
    To get back to the point I was trying to address, the question was whether it made more sense to give long, traversing boulder problems a YDS grade or a V-grade. If you think that the grade should mean something compared with other climbs rated on the same scale, then it makes more sense to give long boulder problems a YDS grade.

    That makes no sense. For all intents and purposes, the YDS and the V-scale are the same scale, just with different spellings. They are used to subjectively measure the same things. (As you pointed out, you could even use MCAT numbers as one of these scales.) Comparing a route rated on the V-scale with a route rated on the YDS makes precisely the same amount of sense---and has the same "meaning", whatever that happens to be---as comparing one route rated on the YDS with another rated on the YDS.

    You are confused. Somewhere along the line you missed my main point: that bouldering difficulty is different than route difficulty. Thus a bouldering difficulty scale is inherently different than a route difficulty scale.

    In reply to:
    I have not been claiming to know what that meaning is. However, it is indisputable that these scales are useful, even if they aren't meaningful.

    That is a silly statement. Hopefully, it is not what you meant. Obviously, if the scale was meaningless it wouldn't be useful (in fact, it wouldn't be a scale).

    In reply to:
    Perhaps the meaning is some sort of theoretical utility (like a center of gravity or any other fictional but useful entity).

    Side note: center of gravity (mass) is well defined; I don't know why you call it fictional.

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    In what sense would a long endurance V6 be comparable in difficulty to a typical-length power-oriented V6? Please don't answer my question with another question. Just answer the question plainly if you can.

    I can't, but it is an irrelevant question. As I keep pointing out, you have the same issues solely within the YDS, or within any of the other members of this class of grading scales. (And the length of the climb is not the only thing that raises these issues.)

    What I keep pointing out is that although the problem never goes away completely, the more homogeneous you make the set that the scale grades, the less the problem is.

    A trip to our local gym will illustrate how poorly the V-scale performs for long problems. We have a long problem rated V3. It feels V3 to the boulderers, but lard-ass 5.10a route climbers, who can't boulder V1, can do this so-called V3 easily. Why? Because it has nothing in common with typical V3s and a lot in common with typical 5.10a's.

    Jay


    rainontin


    Mar 21, 2007, 2:13 PM
    Post #133 of 202 (3686 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Mar 3, 2005
    Posts: 262

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    When Jim Holloway has climbed two V15s, nineteen V14s, fifty-six V13s and ninety-eight V12s I'll call him the best boulderer. Until then, I'll stick with Dave Graham.

    I think it should also be noted that Holloway's "big three" are far from classic climbs in far from classic areas. When was the last time Fred Nicole took a trip to Flagstaff Mountain? AHR is a crumbling piece of shit that is unrepeateable in it's current state because the ground has eroded from the base of the climb enough to make it significantly harder than it was back in the day. I have watched Daniel Woods try Meathook and he couldn't do it because, surprise, he couldn't reach the holds...Dave Graham nearly did Slapshot but was worried he would break one of holds off. I believe he said it was hard 12 or easy 13.


    curt


    Mar 21, 2007, 7:40 PM
    Post #134 of 202 (3669 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    jt512 wrote:
    To get back to the point I was trying to address, the question was whether it made more sense to give long, traversing boulder problems a YDS grade or a V-grade. If you think that the grade should mean something compared with other climbs rated on the same scale, then it makes more sense to give long boulder problems a YDS grade.

    That makes no sense. For all intents and purposes, the YDS and the V-scale are the same scale, just with different spellings. They are used to subjectively measure the same things...

    Sure, and a stopwatch is used to measure both 100 yard dashes and marathons. In practical terms, however, a stopwatch without a second hand (that would be largely useless in timing sprints) might be just be fine for timing marathons. In my opinion, it's a similar difference between bouldering and roped climbing that calls for the use of different rating systems.

    Curt


    karl_hungus


    Mar 21, 2007, 8:32 PM
    Post #135 of 202 (3659 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 3, 2003
    Posts: 22

    Re: [rainontin] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    In reply to:
    Dave Graham nearly did Slapshot but was worried he would break one of holds off. I believe he said it was hard 12 or easy 13

    So what you're saying is Dave Graham tried, but didn't do Slapshot. You aren't helping the cause making statements like this. "Nearly doing" and "Doing" are vastly different, and I am quite sure that Dave of all people, is acutely aware of the difference. It's not a work of art. You pull and if it breaks it breaks. Then, it's either "Done" or it's "Undone".


    rainontin


    Mar 21, 2007, 9:33 PM
    Post #136 of 202 (3648 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Mar 3, 2005
    Posts: 262

    Re: [karl_hungus] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    He didn't do it because he did not want to break it. That is his choice. My point is that the moves have been repeated and are far from impossible.


    karl_hungus


    Mar 21, 2007, 9:53 PM
    Post #137 of 202 (3642 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 3, 2003
    Posts: 22

    Re: [rainontin] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    In reply to:
    He didn't do it because he did not want to break it. That is his choice. My point is that the moves have been repeated and are far from impossible.

    Umm, yeah, we know it's not impossible because Jim Holloway DID it. Dave, apparently, didn't.


    dlintz


    Mar 21, 2007, 9:58 PM
    Post #138 of 202 (3641 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Sep 9, 2002
    Posts: 1982

    Re: [rainontin] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    rainontin wrote:
    He didn't do it because he did not want to break it. That is his choice. My point is that the moves have been repeated and are far from impossible.

    That's true, it was his choice but it's not like Slapshot is some freaky highball...and one of the holds has already broken before. Why not give it a try?

    I think Holloway is a legitimate contender for best ever. The argument regarding his huge ape index doesn't hold much water compared at least to Graham, his reach is pretty impressive also. Bouldering has came a long way since the 70's, and the "game" is a lot different these days. Sharma, Graham and Woods for the most part don't have to worry about how they're gonna pay for their next "roadtrip" especially with a camera crew pertpetually in tow. If Holloway had been born 25 years later he may be enjoying the same opportunities as today's current strongmen....but who knows.

    My 2 cents.

    d.


    rainontin


    Mar 21, 2007, 10:06 PM
    Post #139 of 202 (3633 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Mar 3, 2005
    Posts: 262

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    curt wrote:
    chainsaw wrote:
    Meathook = reach problem
    AHR = reach problem
    Slapshot = reach problem

    You obviously have no personal knowledge of these problems. Neither Meathook nor AHR are reach problems. Please reference Chris Jones' comments on these problems in Pat Ament's book: The History of Free Climbing in America.
    Curt

    Please explain to me how AHR is not a reach problem.


    dhaulagiri


    Mar 22, 2007, 12:19 PM
    Post #140 of 202 (3616 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Sep 29, 2003
    Posts: 236

    Re: [rainontin] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    rainontin wrote:
    curt wrote:
    chainsaw wrote:
    Meathook = reach problem
    AHR = reach problem
    Slapshot = reach problem

    You obviously have no personal knowledge of these problems. Neither Meathook nor AHR are reach problems. Please reference Chris Jones' comments on these problems in Pat Ament's book: The History of Free Climbing in America.
    Curt

    Please explain to me how AHR is not a reach problem.

    Are there any photos or videos of these chosspiles online anywhere?


    curt


    Mar 22, 2007, 6:40 PM
    Post #141 of 202 (3594 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [rainontin] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    rainontin wrote:
    curt wrote:
    chainsaw wrote:
    Meathook = reach problem
    AHR = reach problem
    Slapshot = reach problem

    You obviously have no personal knowledge of these problems. Neither Meathook nor AHR are reach problems. Please reference Chris Jones' comments on these problems in Pat Ament's book: The History of Free Climbing in America.
    Curt

    Please explain to me how AHR is not a reach problem.

    Because there are no long reaches on it. It starts in an undercling that a 4 foot pygmy could reach. The move to the first pocket is not far--nor is the reach to the crux pocket far. It's merely next to impossible to hold on to those incredibly bad pockets, when your feet cut loose.

    I have tried the problem a few times. Believe me, I'm 5'11" and there is no reach on that thing that I would consider long. It certainly does not require a 6'4" boulderer to do it--just someone with strong enough fingers.

    Curt


    dhaulagiri


    Mar 22, 2007, 7:51 PM
    Post #142 of 202 (3587 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Sep 29, 2003
    Posts: 236

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    curt wrote:
    rainontin wrote:
    curt wrote:
    chainsaw wrote:
    Meathook = reach problem
    AHR = reach problem
    Slapshot = reach problem

    You obviously have no personal knowledge of these problems. Neither Meathook nor AHR are reach problems. Please reference Chris Jones' comments on these problems in Pat Ament's book: The History of Free Climbing in America.
    Curt

    Please explain to me how AHR is not a reach problem.

    Because there are no long reaches on it. It starts in an undercling that a 4 foot pygmy could reach. The move to the first pocket is not far--nor is the reach to the crux pocket far. It's merely next to impossible to hold on to those incredibly bad pockets, when your feet cut loose.

    I have tried the problem a few times. Believe me, I'm 5'11" and there is no reach on that thing that I would consider long. It certainly does not require a 6'4" boulderer to do it--just someone with strong enough fingers.

    Curt

    don't you think there must be a plausible reason why nobody has repeated these problems beyond the improbable idea that holloway is somehow better than climbers like woods and graham.


    curt


    Mar 22, 2007, 8:35 PM
    Post #143 of 202 (3578 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Aug 26, 2002
    Posts: 18273

    Re: [dhaulagiri] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    dhaulagiri wrote:
    curt wrote:
    rainontin wrote:
    curt wrote:
    chainsaw wrote:
    Meathook = reach problem
    AHR = reach problem
    Slapshot = reach problem

    You obviously have no personal knowledge of these problems. Neither Meathook nor AHR are reach problems. Please reference Chris Jones' comments on these problems in Pat Ament's book: The History of Free Climbing in America.
    Curt

    Please explain to me how AHR is not a reach problem.

    Because there are no long reaches on it. It starts in an undercling that a 4 foot pygmy could reach. The move to the first pocket is not far--nor is the reach to the crux pocket far. It's merely next to impossible to hold on to those incredibly bad pockets, when your feet cut loose.

    I have tried the problem a few times. Believe me, I'm 5'11" and there is no reach on that thing that I would consider long. It certainly does not require a 6'4" boulderer to do it--just someone with strong enough fingers.

    Curt

    don't you think there must be a plausible reason why nobody has repeated these problems beyond the improbable idea that holloway is somehow better than climbers like woods and graham.

    Perhaps Holloway is just bouldering's Bob Beamon. Who knows?

    Curt


    fracture


    Mar 23, 2007, 9:45 AM
    Post #144 of 202 (3555 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [jt512] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    jt512 wrote:
    You are confused. Somewhere along the line you missed my main point: that bouldering difficulty is different than route difficulty. Thus a bouldering difficulty scale is inherently different than a route difficulty scale.

    There is far more variation between individual boulder problems or individual sport routes than there is between The Typical Boulder Problem and The Typical Sport Route. If you were asked to identify exactly how bouldering difficulty is essentially different from climbing with a rope tied to you, what would you say? Stressed energy-production system(s) is not a good answer (it flies in the face of our empirical data: Burn Baby Burn, The Wheel of Life, power-endurance and power sport routes, etc).

    "Bouldering" (contrary to Curt's prescriptions) just means you were close enough to the ground that a rope wasn't necessary.

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    I have not been claiming to know what that meaning is. However, it is indisputable that these scales are useful, even if they aren't meaningful.

    That is a silly statement. Hopefully, it is not what you meant. Obviously, if the scale was meaningless it wouldn't be useful (in fact, it wouldn't be a scale).

    Here's some other example scales which are meaningless in the sense I mean, but useful in practice.

    In reply to:
    Side note: center of gravity (mass) is well defined; I don't know why you call it fictional.

    "Fictional" because it only exists in a special metaphorical sense.

    There's lots of these types of things. Do you think numbers are "out there" (certainly nothing is as well-defined as numbers)? Where is twelve located, and what is its velocity? Where should I search for the power set of the set of all integers?

    In reply to:
    What I keep pointing out is that although the problem never goes away completely, the more homogeneous you make the set that the scale grades, the less the problem is.

    And if restricting the scale-usage based on the length of a boulder problem actually did that, maybe you'd have a point. But as I keep explaining, power and power-endurance sport routes are not rare---you have this problem on both ends. Moreover, you have just as much (or probably more) justification to do your homogenization based on things like required types of movement or handhold type as by protection-system or energy-production system (which would demand three scales, not two).

    Also, you have to realize that you are arguing against the (functional) status quo. Your change not only needs to result in fewer "problems", it needs to result in greater net utility for people actually using the system. Greater than the status quo, but (more importantly to me) also greater than alternative changes to the status quo (such as eliminating the current protection-system-based division in favor of a single scale for everything).

    In particular, you (hopefully) must admit that it would be useful for those of us who are interested in power-endurance to not have to use separate rating systems (on similar climbs) based on a trivial detail like whether a rope is tied to our waist, right?

    In reply to:
    A trip to our local gym will illustrate how poorly the V-scale performs for long problems. We have a long problem rated V3. It feels V3 to the boulderers, but lard-ass 5.10a route climbers, who can't boulder V1, can do this so-called V3 easily. Why? Because it has nothing in common with typical V3s and a lot in common with typical 5.10a's.

    But you're extrapolating from one badly rated problem at your gym to all of a sort of application of a grading scale. Gyms are known for bad grading anyway (and the causes of lower-quality indoor ratings are completely understandable). But, in contrast to your story, if you go to my gym, the long V3's usually feel more like 11+. (Maybe there's just more power-endurance climbers in my area to help get the ratings right.)


    fracture


    Mar 23, 2007, 9:52 AM
    Post #145 of 202 (3553 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [curt] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    curt wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    jt512 wrote:
    To get back to the point I was trying to address, the question was whether it made more sense to give long, traversing boulder problems a YDS grade or a V-grade. If you think that the grade should mean something compared with other climbs rated on the same scale, then it makes more sense to give long boulder problems a YDS grade.

    That makes no sense. For all intents and purposes, the YDS and the V-scale are the same scale, just with different spellings. They are used to subjectively measure the same things...

    Sure, and a stopwatch is used to measure both 100 yard dashes and marathons. In practical terms, however, a stopwatch without a second hand (that would be largely useless in timing sprints) might be just be fine for timing marathons. In my opinion, it's a similar difference between bouldering and roped climbing that calls for the use of different rating systems.

    That's a great analogy. But it points to an existing argument for the inferiority of the Hueco-scale, which has fewer "notches" in the lower grades (V1-V5) compared to the YDS (or to Font).


    diophantus


    Mar 23, 2007, 9:56 AM
    Post #146 of 202 (3551 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Oct 11, 2006
    Posts: 354

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    If there was a rating scale for futility of an argument I'd give this thread a 7, though if it goes on much longer I may have to convert to the YDS scale...LaughLaugh


    dlintz


    Mar 23, 2007, 10:04 AM
    Post #147 of 202 (3545 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Sep 9, 2002
    Posts: 1982

    Re: [diophantus] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    diophantus wrote:
    If there was a rating scale for futility of an argument I'd give this thread a 7, though if it goes on much longer I may have to convert to the YDS scale...LaughLaugh

    Nice!

    d.


    jt512


    Mar 23, 2007, 12:53 PM
    Post #148 of 202 (3530 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Apr 11, 2001
    Posts: 21904

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    jt512 wrote:
    You are confused. Somewhere along the line you missed my main point: that bouldering difficulty is different than route difficulty. Thus a bouldering difficulty scale is inherently different than a route difficulty scale.

    There is far more variation between individual boulder problems or individual sport routes than there is between The Typical Boulder Problem and The Typical Sport Route.

    You cannot prove such a claim (no matter how many examples you give), but even if it is true, then you still make the scales more homogeneous (which can be proved mathematically) by rating long traversing boulder problems by using the YDS scale rather than the V-scale.

    In reply to:
    If you were asked to identify exactly how bouldering difficulty is essentially different from climbing with a rope tied to you, what would you say? Stressed energy-production system(s) is not a good answer (it flies in the face of our empirical data: Burn Baby Burn, The Wheel of Life, power-endurance and power sport routes, etc).

    "Bouldering" (contrary to Curt's prescriptions) just means you were close enough to the ground that a rope wasn't necessary.

    Right, but the purpose of the rating scale is to measure difficulty, so the question should not be (if you want to maximize the usefulness of the scales) how do bouldering and roped climbing differ by definition, but how does their difficulty differ.

    In reply to:
    Here's some other example scales which are meaningless in the sense I mean, but useful in practice.

    You are obfuscating the issue by using senseless phrases like "meaningless in the sense that you mean." "Meaningless" means has no meaning. Period. A scale would be meaningless only if ratings on the scale were uncorrelated with that which was being rated. The pain scale would be meaningless only if responses were uncorrelated with pain, but the ratings are undoubtedly highly correlated with pain, and therefore the scale is not meaningless.

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    Side note: center of gravity (mass) is well defined; I don't know why you call it fictional.

    "Fictional" because it only exists in a special metaphorical sense.

    No, center of mass (gravity) is well defined. In general it is the integral of the moments divided by total mass. For the special case of a two-dimensional object, it is the balance point of the object. There is nothing inherently metaphoric about it.

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    What I keep pointing out is that although the problem never goes away completely, the more homogeneous you make the set that the scale grades, the less the problem is.

    And if restricting the scale-usage based on the length of a boulder problem actually did that, maybe you'd have a point.

    It does do it. I didn't say it made the scale completely homogeneous; I said it made it more homogeneous (and hence more useful). I don't know whether to recommend that you study statistics to expand your way of looking at the world, or to recommend that you assiduously avoid doing so to protect your GPA.

    In reply to:
    In particular, you (hopefully) must admit that it would be useful for those of us who are interested in power-endurance to not have to use separate rating systems (on similar climbs) based on a trivial detail like whether a rope is tied to our waist, right?

    That is precisely what I am arguing for long traversing bouldering problems. In general, difficulty scales should be rating sets of things that have similar type of difficulty.

    Jay


    fracture


    Mar 23, 2007, 5:57 PM
    Post #149 of 202 (3506 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 1814

    Re: [jt512] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    jt512 wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    jt512 wrote:
    You are confused. Somewhere along the line you missed my main point: that bouldering difficulty is different than route difficulty. Thus a bouldering difficulty scale is inherently different than a route difficulty scale.

    There is far more variation between individual boulder problems or individual sport routes than there is between The Typical Boulder Problem and The Typical Sport Route.

    You cannot prove such a claim (no matter how many examples you give), but even if it is true, then you still make the scales more homogeneous (which can be proved mathematically) by rating long traversing boulder problems by using the YDS scale rather than the V-scale.

    Ok. But making the scales more homogeneous is not a goal in and of itself.

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    If you were asked to identify exactly how bouldering difficulty is essentially different from climbing with a rope tied to you, what would you say? Stressed energy-production system(s) is not a good answer (it flies in the face of our empirical data: Burn Baby Burn, The Wheel of Life, power-endurance and power sport routes, etc).

    "Bouldering" (contrary to Curt's prescriptions) just means you were close enough to the ground that a rope wasn't necessary.

    Right, but the purpose of the rating scale is to measure difficulty, so the question should not be (if you want to maximize the usefulness of the scales) how do bouldering and roped climbing differ by definition, but how does their difficulty differ.

    Ok. So, how does the difficulty differ, then?

    (Again, the set of energy-production systems that may be used is not different.)

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    Side note: center of gravity (mass) is well defined; I don't know why you call it fictional.

    "Fictional" because it only exists in a special metaphorical sense.

    No, center of mass (gravity) is well defined. In general it is the integral of the moments divided by total mass. For the special case of a two-dimensional object, it is the balance point of the object. There is nothing inherently metaphoric about it.

    Yes there is, and you're simply wrong (but it's okay: you're out of your field). As I mentioned: numbers are also well-defined. Numbers are also inherently metaphorical (along with many other things that you take to "exist", like thoughts, colors, algorithms, personalities, mp3 files or the empty set). Much of human cognition is fundamentally metaphorical, as well.

    The use of a "two-dimensional object" is an ironic example, by the way. (It's another fictional-but-useful entity.)

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    What I keep pointing out is that although the problem never goes away completely, the more homogeneous you make the set that the scale grades, the less the problem is.

    And if restricting the scale-usage based on the length of a boulder problem actually did that, maybe you'd have a point.

    It does do it. I didn't say it made the scale completely homogeneous; I said it made it more homogeneous (and hence more useful).

    But I dispute that more homogeneous implies more useful.

    In fact, I think that is provably not the case, and I think I already showed how: the most "homogeneous" possible use of climbing rating scales would be if we had one rating system per route per climber. I assert (and we can argue if you want) that this is a completely useless configuration, since it would not succeed at any of the goals for rating systems that I listed earlier. There is at least one other, more useful configuration with lower total homogeneity than this (i.e., the status quo), therefore the implication doesn't universally obtain.

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    In particular, you (hopefully) must admit that it would be useful for those of us who are interested in power-endurance to not have to use separate rating systems (on similar climbs) based on a trivial detail like whether a rope is tied to our waist, right?

    That is precisely what I am arguing for long traversing bouldering problems.

    But you want to do it at the expense of comparison with shorter problems. Again, what this comparison means is up for debate, but it makes as much sense as comparison within the set of long traversing problems itself, which is also quite full of problematic variety.

    Maybe you might consider articulating your proposed changes to the status quo a little more precisely, so I know exactly what I'm arguing about. For example, on what scale would you rate a long boulder problem that contained a series of power-endurance sections separated by no-hands knee-bars? What if it's the same, but some of them are power sections? What if we add a local endurance section at the end? What if the local endurance section is only 5.10a, but the power sections are V6? What if the local endurance is 13c and the power sections are V9? What if it's enduro 13c and the power is only V4?

    You haven't given me enough information to answer these questions; it's very possible that I'm wasting some time by arguing against irrelevant bogeymen. On the other hand, if you find trouble answering these sorts of questions yourself, maybe you need to think about your position a little more carefully: the status quo (or a single universal rating system) both can handle these types of climbs successfully (under the criteria I gave earlier) without any trouble.

    In reply to:
    In general, difficulty scales should be rating sets of things that have similar type of difficulty.

    How about things like safe rock climbs? If that's not all classifiable as "a similar type of difficulty" (for some value of "similar"), then I guess I should throw away all my training literature.


    (This post was edited by fracture on Mar 23, 2007, 6:00 PM)


    jt512


    Mar 23, 2007, 7:59 PM
    Post #150 of 202 (3495 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Apr 11, 2001
    Posts: 21904

    Re: [fracture] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    fracture wrote:
    jt512 wrote:
    fracture wrote:
    jt512 wrote:
    You are confused. Somewhere along the line you missed my main point: that bouldering difficulty is different than route difficulty. Thus a bouldering difficulty scale is inherently different than a route difficulty scale.

    There is far more variation between individual boulder problems or individual sport routes than there is between The Typical Boulder Problem and The Typical Sport Route.

    You cannot prove such a claim (no matter how many examples you give), but even if it is true, then you still make the scales more homogeneous (which can be proved mathematically) by rating long traversing boulder problems by using the YDS scale rather than the V-scale.

    Ok. But making the scales more homogeneous is not a goal in and of itself.

    But making them more useful is, and by making them more homogeneous, they are more useful.

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    If you were asked to identify exactly how bouldering difficulty is essentially different from climbing with a rope tied to you, what would you say? Stressed energy-production system(s) is not a good answer (it flies in the face of our empirical data: Burn Baby Burn, The Wheel of Life, power-endurance and power sport routes, etc).

    "Bouldering" (contrary to Curt's prescriptions) just means you were close enough to the ground that a rope wasn't necessary.

    Right, but the purpose of the rating scale is to measure difficulty, so the question should not be (if you want to maximize the usefulness of the scales) how do bouldering and roped climbing differ by definition, but how does their difficulty differ.

    Ok. So, how does the difficulty differ, then?

    (Again, the set of energy-production systems that may be used is not different.)

    Short boulder problems tend to emphasize power, whereas long traversing problems and routes tend to emphasize endurance. I feel like I am talking to a 5th grader, instead one of the most intelligent guys on the site. Do you need a cup of coffee, or something?

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    Side note: center of gravity (mass) is well defined; I don't know why you call it fictional.

    "Fictional" because it only exists in a special metaphorical sense.

    No, center of mass (gravity) is well defined. In general it is the integral of the moments divided by total mass. For the special case of a two-dimensional object, it is the balance point of the object. There is nothing inherently metaphoric about it.

    Yes there is, and you're simply wrong (but it's okay: you're out of your field). As I mentioned: numbers are also well-defined. Numbers are also inherently metaphorical (along with many other things that you take to "exist", like thoughts, colors, algorithms, personalities, mp3 files or the empty set).

    Numbers are inherently metaphorical? Since when? What are they an inherent metaphor for?

    In reply to:
    The use of a "two-dimensional object" is an ironic example, by the way. (It's another fictional-but-useful entity.)

    There is nothing fictional about it, but it occurred to me right after I posted it that I should have used a three-dimensional object as an example instead, which I suppose you think is less fictional than a 2-dimensional one. How about 4 dimensional objects: are they more or less fictional than 3 dimensional objects? Is three-dimensional space the only space in which factual objects exist?

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    What I keep pointing out is that although the problem never goes away completely, the more homogeneous you make the set that the scale grades, the less the problem is.

    And if restricting the scale-usage based on the length of a boulder problem actually did that, maybe you'd have a point.

    It does do it. I didn't say it made the scale completely homogeneous; I said it made it more homogeneous (and hence more useful).

    But I dispute that more homogeneous implies more useful.

    Then not only are you nuts, you contradict your own point about the desirability of grading all power-endurance climbs, roped or unroped, on the same scale.

    In reply to:
    In fact, I think that is provably not the case, and I think I already showed how: the most "homogeneous" possible use of climbing rating scales would be if we had one rating system per route per climber.

    No, that is not the most homogeneous scale. It's not a scale at all. If you have no variability among the things being rated you can't have a scale. Now, if you can identify difficulty characteristics of climbs, and rate them on separate scales, you have more information about the climb. This should be obvious. If you know the endurance difficulty of the route and the power difficulty of the route, for instance, you have more information about the route than if you have a single number representing its difficulty.

    Comparing the difficulty of a short powerful problem with a long endurance one is absurd. Does it make any sense to say that Route 1 is harder than Route 2 because Route 1 requires more power than Route 2 requires endurance? But if you had separate power and endurance ratings for each problem, then you would actually have a way of comparing the difficulty of the two problems. Which route was harder or easier for you would depend on how good you are at power and endurance problems. But now the fucking scale makes sense. Look at how dividing the scale into two dimensions reduces the so-called subjectivity of the rating systems. An endurance climber and a power climber should be in much closer agreement on their ratings on the 2-dimensional scale than on their 1-dimensional difficult scale.

    In reply to:
    ...but it makes as much sense as comparison within the set of long traversing problems itself, which is also quite full of problematic variety.

    Yes, within-group heterogeneity would remain, but it would be reduced. The fact that you can't reduce it to zero, which is pervasive in statistics, doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to reduce it at all. In fields of applied statistics, such as clinical trials, that are more sophisticated than the study of rock climbing ratings, you must identify and isolate causes of heterogeneity. Doing so improves the predictive validity of the model. In clinical trials, lives depend on the ability of the statistician to be able to predict what factors influence whether a person will have a successful treatment. You don't make such predictions on the basis of a single heterogeneous efficacy rating. Likewise, you could more effectively predict a climber's performance on a particular if you had a more sophisticated representation of difficulty than a single heterogeneous difficulty rating.

    When it comes right down to it, you are arguing that more detail gives you less useful information, which on its face is false.

    In reply to:
    Maybe you might consider articulating your proposed changes to the status quo a little more precisely, so I know exactly what I'm arguing about. For example, on what scale would you rate a long boulder problem that contained a series of power-endurance sections separated by no-hands knee-bars? What if it's the same, but some of them are power sections? What if we add a local endurance section at the end? What if the local endurance section is only 5.10a, but the power sections are V6? What if the local endurance is 13c and the power sections are V9? What if it's enduro 13c and the power is only V4?

    You haven't given me enough information to answer these questions; it's very possible that I'm wasting some time by arguing against irrelevant bogeymen. On the other hand, if you find trouble answering these sorts of questions yourself, maybe you need to think about your position a little more carefully: the status quo (or a single universal rating system) both can handle these types of climbs successfully (under the criteria I gave earlier) without any trouble.

    Really, how? And don't say "because it does," or that "it must because that's the way it's done." Which is harder, a two-move V5 or a 100-foot 5.11c? V5 is supposed to be harder than 11c, right? All the ratings comparison charts say so. But I know a whole lot of V5 boulderers that wouldn't make it half-way up the 11c, for purely physical reasons (forget the potection). And so, how do you compare the difficulty of these two routes?

    Jay


    anykineclimb


    Mar 23, 2007, 8:21 PM
    Post #151 of 202 (3636 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Mar 29, 2003
    Posts: 3593

    Re: [freeforsum] Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]
    Report this Post
    Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
    Can't Post

    freeforsum wrote:
    curt wrote:
    freeforsum wrote:
    Who cares? Its just bouldering. bouldering alone is lame.

    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.

    Don't tell me what the point of climbing is. You don't don't what it is. For me.


    matterunomama


    Mar 25, 2007, 2:59 PM
    Post #152 of 202 (3607 views)
    Shortcut

    Registered: Mar 11, 2005
    Posts: 419

    youngest Best Boulderer Ever [In reply to]