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

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All


themadmilkman


Mar 15, 2007, 8:54 PM
Post #101 of 202 (3819 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 (3818 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 (3811 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 (3800 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 (3798 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 (3792 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 (3789 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 (3782 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 (3777 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 (3774 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 (3772 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 (3765 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 (3762 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 (3758 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 (3751 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 (3723 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 (3708 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 (3673 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 (3663 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 (3649 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 (3637 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 (3637 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 (3634 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 (3627 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 (3607 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

    First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All

    Forums : Climbing Disciplines : Bouldering

     


    Search for (options)

    Log In:

    Username:
    Password: Remember me:

    Go Register
    Go Lost Password?



    Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook