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


curt


Mar 16, 2007, 10:02 PM
Post #126 of 202 (3829 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 (3821 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 (3789 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 (3747 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 (3745 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 (3732 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 (3698 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 (3685 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 (3668 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 (3658 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 (3647 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 (3641 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 (3640 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 (3632 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 (3615 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 (3593 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 (3586 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 (3577 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 (3554 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 (3552 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 (3550 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 (3544 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 (3529 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 (3505 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 (3494 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

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