Forums: Climbing Information: General:
Sigh, back on the soapbox
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for General

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Next page Last page  View All


atpeaceinbozeman


Sep 18, 2007, 5:41 PM
Post #126 of 317 (8172 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 16, 2002
Posts: 478

Re: [jt512] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:

Pretty much everybody in every sport tries to get better. You don't see gymnasts saying, I'm happy with an 8 on the parallel bars, because I like the movement.

No, I was saying your redpoint gets an 8 because you ticked the holds.

If you reflect on your favorite climb, is it the hardest one you've sent?


jt512


Sep 18, 2007, 5:50 PM
Post #127 of 317 (8157 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21893

Re: [atpeaceinbozeman] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

atpeaceinbozeman wrote:
If you reflect on your favorite climb, is it the hardest one you've sent?

It's within the top few.

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Sep 18, 2007, 5:51 PM)


Johnny_Fang


Sep 18, 2007, 5:53 PM
Post #128 of 317 (8154 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 19, 2006
Posts: 289

Re: [jt512] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've been lurking for about two and a half years now. I check the page several times a day. I've posted maybe... what? Once? Never? Not sure. This thread, though is sooo compelling that I just HAVE to say three things.

First: Yes, tick marks are unsolicited beta and about as welcome as someone walking below you and shouting "Crimper to the right! Crimper to the right! Now gaston!" EVERYONE hates that guy. I mean EVERYONE.

Second: Why is everyone always so mean to Majid when Jay is clearly the biggest ass on here? Majid is just a harmless doofus who is good for some laughs, but Jay... well... Jay seems just plain intentional about his mean spiritedness. His inability to perform in social situations seems almost like Asperger's syndrome or Autism.

Third: I'm bouncing with pride that one of my first posts has earned me a spot on Jay's killfile. Not many people can say that.

And now, back to lurking. I'll post again in two and a half years, maybe.


shockabuku


Sep 18, 2007, 6:29 PM
Post #129 of 317 (8141 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4864

Re: [Johnny_Fang] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

After deciding that local ethics should dictate the use of tick marks just like other questions of ethics, I decided to ask the smartest person I know, my 15 year old daughter who is a sport climber (predominantly gym) and boulderer. She said, 'tick marks are great' or something to that effect, and then followed that up with 'but they should be removed because some people don't like them.' How thoughtful. Just for the record she doesn't climb quite as hard as Jay, but she's getting there and she is chasing the numbers.


flint


Sep 18, 2007, 6:37 PM
Post #130 of 317 (8133 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 20, 2007
Posts: 543

Re: [jt512] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
angry wrote:
Yep, I guess it has a little. I didn't read the "edit" just the rest of your nonsense.

You remind of the speech and debate kid in high school. You know the one. He's very self assured and likes to argue every point, whether right or wrong, just to argue.

I don't know why you think that applies to my stating a banal fact about climber using tick marks.

Jay

I don't know why you think that applies to my stating an anal fact about climbers using tick marks.

Thought I would join in the editing fun. Unfortunately, Jay won't see this as I have been moved to the killfile corner as well. Damn it is getting crowded.

Edit: Thanks Moose


(This post was edited by flint on Sep 18, 2007, 7:24 PM)


moose_droppings


Sep 18, 2007, 7:02 PM
Post #131 of 317 (8107 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3360

Re: [flint] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

flint wrote:
jt512 wrote:
angry wrote:
Yep, I guess it has a little. I didn't read the "edit" just the rest of your nonsense.

You remind of the speech and debate kid in high school. You know the one. He's very self assured and likes to argue every point, whether right or wrong, just to argue.

I don't know why you think that applies to my stating an anal fact about climbers using tick marks.

Jay

Thought I would join in the editing fun. Unfortunately, Jay won't see this as I have been moved to the killfile corner as well. Damn it is getting crowded.

You really ought to add what you changed that someone said. It wouldn't be fair to Jay if some one else thought he had said anal and you just highlighted it. It just helps keeps things straight on down the line for some that maybe didn't read the whole thread.

Anyone else need some popcorn while I'm up?
Smile


(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Sep 18, 2007, 7:03 PM)


jt512


Sep 18, 2007, 7:05 PM
Post #132 of 317 (8097 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21893

Re: [moose_droppings] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

moose_droppings wrote:
flint wrote:
jt512 wrote:
angry wrote:
Yep, I guess it has a little. I didn't read the "edit" just the rest of your nonsense.

You remind of the speech and debate kid in high school. You know the one. He's very self assured and likes to argue every point, whether right or wrong, just to argue.

I don't know why you think that applies to my stating an anal fact about climbers using tick marks.

Jay

Thought I would join in the editing fun. Unfortunately, Jay won't see this as I have been moved to the killfile corner as well. Damn it is getting crowded.

You really ought to add what you changed that someone said. It wouldn't be fair to Jay if some one else thought he had said anal and you just highlighted it.

Yep. Intentional misquoting "for fun" was explicitly against the Terms of Service on the old site. Flint, please edit or delete your post.

Jay


k.l.k


Sep 18, 2007, 7:15 PM
Post #133 of 317 (8086 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [atpeaceinbozeman] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Part of the problem here is terms. What do "performance" and numbers" mean? For jt512, they refer to redpoint ability. For atpeaceinbozeman, they refer to onsight ability. Climbing only pre-tickmarked routes may indeed help you speed up your redpoints. Climbing only pre-tickmarked routes will mess up your ability to onsight.

Jt512 is being dogmatic here for effect (or maybe just for fun). Since he is a big proponent of "The Self-Coached Climber," he already understands that climbing and training are highly sport-specific, and that climbing only pre-tickmarked routes trains one to look for and use tickmarks. Since he wants to redpoint projects as quickly as possible, on local crags that are eternally tickmarked, that works pretty well. But he obviously also understands that climbing only on pre-tickmarked routes will weaken one's ability to read natural rock quickly and efficiently without tickmarks, hence reducing one's ability to put up big numbers onsighting. Moreover, since he also understands that working a weakness will do far more for one's abilities than working on a strength, and that most climbers now come from gym backgrounds and have more difficulty with reading natural rock (for footholds or pro placements) than with their movement vocabularies, he also must understand that climbing only pre-tickmarked routes would cut against the training principles that he has upheld elsewhere on this forum.


flint


Sep 18, 2007, 7:35 PM
Post #134 of 317 (8065 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 20, 2007
Posts: 543

Re: [jt512] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
flint wrote:
jt512 wrote:
angry wrote:
Yep, I guess it has a little. I didn't read the "edit" just the rest of your nonsense.

You remind of the speech and debate kid in high school. You know the one. He's very self assured and likes to argue every point, whether right or wrong, just to argue.

I don't know why you think that applies to my stating an anal fact about climbers using tick marks.

Jay

Thought I would join in the editing fun. Unfortunately, Jay won't see this as I have been moved to the killfile corner as well. Damn it is getting crowded.

You really ought to add what you changed that someone said. It wouldn't be fair to Jay if some one else thought he had said anal and you just highlighted it.

Yep. Intentional misquoting "for fun" was explicitly against the Terms of Service on the old site. Flint, please edit or delete your post.

Jay

Yes, on the old site. Are you not the one that was expressing the need for another to question their writing ability. Further more, it was just a joke, lets all play with a lighter heart and a little thicker skin.

j-


microbarn


Sep 18, 2007, 7:36 PM
Post #135 of 317 (8064 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [jt512] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
Pretty much everybody in every sport tries to get better. You don't see gymnasts saying, I'm happy with an 8 on the parallel bars, because I like the movement. The is primarily a climbing phenomenon, whereby weak climbers pretend that staying weak and climbing at moderate levels is on a higher spiritual plane than trying to actually improve one's climbing. They call the latter "number chasing" in a thinly veiled attempt to make themselves feel better about their own inability or laziness. Your holier-than-thou, "if that's how you define your climbing, blah, blah, blah," is precisely what I'm talking about. Incredibly, you've actually convinced yourself of the moral superiority of mediocre performance. Amazing.

Edit: And now that your grammar has been corrected you change your post and note that it has been "edited for 'clarity'." You can't even be honest with yourself about your writing ability.

Jay

You can't be deluding yourself that much.

Every adult or seniors team I have ever encountered has the mentality of just playing for fun. Sure, they all look to improve, but they don't delude themselves into thinking they will make the olympics next year either. Climbers that don't chase numbers are looking to improve, but they aren't looking to go pro either. Every sport has a similar group that participate for fun.


jt512


Sep 18, 2007, 7:38 PM
Post #136 of 317 (8059 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21893

Re: [k.l.k] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

k.l.k wrote:
Part of the problem here is terms. What do "performance" and numbers" mean? For jt512, they refer to redpoint ability. For atpeaceinbozeman, they refer to onsight ability. Climbing only pre-tickmarked routes may indeed help you speed up your redpoints. Climbing only pre-tickmarked routes will mess up your ability to onsight.

Jt512 is being dogmatic here for effect (or maybe just for fun). Since he is a big proponent of "The Self-Coached Climber," he already understands that climbing and training are highly sport-specific, and that climbing only pre-tickmarked routes trains one to look for and use tickmarks. Since he wants to redpoint projects as quickly as possible, on local crags that are eternally tickmarked, that works pretty well. But he obviously also understands that climbing only on pre-tickmarked routes will weaken one's ability to read natural rock quickly and efficiently without tickmarks, hence reducing one's ability to put up big numbers onsighting. Moreover, since he also understands that working a weakness will do far more for one's abilities than working on a strength, and that most climbers now come from gym backgrounds and have more difficulty with reading natural rock (for footholds or pro placements) than with their movement vocabularies, he also must understand that climbing only pre-tickmarked routes would cut against the training principles that he has upheld elsewhere on this forum.

What he said.

Jay


ajkclay


Sep 18, 2007, 7:46 PM
Post #137 of 317 (8053 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2002
Posts: 1564

Re: [angry] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

angry wrote:
Yep, I guess it has a little. I didn't read the "edit" just the rest of your nonsense.

You remind of the speech and debate kid in high school. You know the one. He's very self assured and likes to argue every point, whether right or wrong, just to argue. The little bitches would argue that the earth was flat just to hear themselves debate. Great if you're on the team, but life isn't a debate meet.

I only ever found one way to shut them up, "shut your mouth or I'll shut it for you". Crude I know, but I never had to actually shut anyone's mouth. At 5'7" and 125lbs, I was pretty intimidating, let me tell you...

Fuck you and your tick marks. Eat my ass!!

Fuck man! That's some funny shit right there! (accurate too)

Laugh Adam


ajkclay


Sep 18, 2007, 7:55 PM
Post #138 of 317 (8045 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 8, 2002
Posts: 1564

Re: [jt512] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
angry wrote:
Yep, I guess it has a little. I didn't read the "edit" just the rest of your nonsense.

You remind of the speech and debate kid in high school. You know the one. He's very self assured and likes to argue every point, whether right or wrong, just to argue.

I don't know why you think that applies to my stating a banal fact about climber using tick marks.

Jay

Jay, more and more I am noticing a trend in your posts:

You become involved in an argument and a point for point quote war ensues...

Then, amazingly when someone tells you that you are a smart-ass know-it-all you protest, feigning ignorance on how this one incident has made people say something so unfair...

Dude, with a history like yours I find it difficult to understand how you think you can defend such a stance... you act exactly the way angry has described in just about every thread I have seen you post...

You may not think you are a smart-ass, but from your post-history and modus-operandi, everyone else does.

... and that's the way it always is with the speech and debate kid in high-school... he thinks that being right about everything will make him really popular when in actual fact it's the reason that everyone else gives him wedgies!

Cheers,

Adam

PS unless someone quotes this, he'll never see it (I'm a JT killfile veteran)


moose_droppings


Sep 18, 2007, 8:08 PM
Post #139 of 317 (8029 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3360

Re: [ajkclay] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ajkclay wrote:
jt512 wrote:
angry wrote:
Yep, I guess it has a little. I didn't read the "edit" just the rest of your nonsense.

You remind of the speech and debate kid in high school. You know the one. He's very self assured and likes to argue every point, whether right or wrong, just to argue.

I don't know why you think that applies to my stating a banal fact about climber using tick marks.

Jay

Jay, more and more I am noticing a trend in your posts:

You become involved in an argument and a point for point quote war ensues...

Then, amazingly when someone tells you that you are a smart-ass know-it-all you protest, feigning ignorance on how this one incident has made people say something so unfair...

Dude, with a history like yours I find it difficult to understand how you think you can defend such a stance... you act exactly the way angry has described in just about every thread I have seen you post...

You may not think you are a smart-ass, but from your post-history and modus-operandi, everyone else does.

... and that's the way it always is with the speech and debate kid in high-school... he thinks that being right about everything will make him really popular when in actual fact it's the reason that everyone else gives him wedgies!

Cheers,

Adam

PS unless someone quotes this, he'll never see it (I'm a JT killfile veteran)


mbg


Sep 18, 2007, 8:11 PM
Post #140 of 317 (8022 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 372

Re: [jt512] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

(Note to self: no posting after more than one adult beverage.)


(This post was edited by mbg on Sep 18, 2007, 8:35 PM)


Partner macherry


Sep 18, 2007, 8:11 PM
Post #141 of 317 (8020 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15808

Re: [flint] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

flint wrote:
jt512 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
flint wrote:
jt512 wrote:
angry wrote:
Yep, I guess it has a little. I didn't read the "edit" just the rest of your nonsense.

You remind of the speech and debate kid in high school. You know the one. He's very self assured and likes to argue every point, whether right or wrong, just to argue.

I don't know why you think that applies to my stating an anal fact about climbers using tick marks.

Jay

Thought I would join in the editing fun. Unfortunately, Jay won't see this as I have been moved to the killfile corner as well. Damn it is getting crowded.

You really ought to add what you changed that someone said. It wouldn't be fair to Jay if some one else thought he had said anal and you just highlighted it.

Yep. Intentional misquoting "for fun" was explicitly against the Terms of Service on the old site. Flint, please edit or delete your post.

Jay

Yes, on the old site. Are you not the one that was expressing the need for another to question their writing ability. Further more, it was just a joke, lets all play with a lighter heart and a little thicker skin.

j-

Misquoting is not allowed on rc.com............joke or not. Please change your quote flint.


shockabuku


Sep 18, 2007, 8:35 PM
Post #142 of 317 (7989 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4864

Re: [macherry] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

macherry wrote:
flint wrote:
jt512 wrote:
moose_droppings wrote:
flint wrote:
jt512 wrote:
angry wrote:
Yep, I guess it has a little. I didn't read the "edit" just the rest of your nonsense.

You remind of the speech and debate kid in high school. You know the one. He's very self assured and likes to argue every point, whether right or wrong, just to argue.

I don't know why you think that applies to my stating an anal fact about climbers using tick marks.

Jay

Thought I would join in the editing fun. Unfortunately, Jay won't see this as I have been moved to the killfile corner as well. Damn it is getting crowded.

You really ought to add what you changed that someone said. It wouldn't be fair to Jay if some one else thought he had said anal and you just highlighted it.

Yep. Intentional misquoting "for fun" was explicitly against the Terms of Service on the old site. Flint, please edit or delete your post.

Jay

Yes, on the old site. Are you not the one that was expressing the need for another to question their writing ability. Further more, it was just a joke, lets all play with a lighter heart and a little thicker skin.

j-

Misquoting is not allowed on rc.com............joke or not. Please change your quote flint.

What about quoting someone who you know misquoted someone else?


mtnfr34k


Sep 18, 2007, 11:30 PM
Post #143 of 317 (7946 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 15, 2005
Posts: 184

Re: [shockabuku] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm more than a little surprised that I agree with Jay on this - ticking is certainly acceptable at most crags that I climb at. And for the record, I climb annually at Smith, Clark Canyon, and Owen River Gorge, where I see it most often. And I've also seen it at Indian Creek, and at several small local crags in Washington and California.
Personally, I'm working on a trad route, and using tick marks to remind myself where gear goes best, since its thin and some placements will have to be blind (meaning I can't visually inspect them until several moves after placing them).
I've never used tick marks placed by others - I've only worked a few routes, but when I do, I have scrubbed any prior ticks and chalk off of holds so that I can figure out the best moves for are for my height and reach, and then leave ticks on the appropriate holds. I can't imagine my SO and I using the same ticks (we're a foot different in height and reach), and I can't imagine climbing onto a route relying on some stranger's ticks to show me the way.
Ticks aren't acceptable? I can remember seeing ticks in the video of Eric Decaria climbing Air Sweden in Moab, Beth Rodden climbing a FA in Smith, Sharma on Realization. Just flip through a mag, and you'll see countless examples of it in adds and photos. Go bouldering, and you'll see it everywhere (I think the word is ubiquitous). In fact, I think the popularity with ticks stemmed from the rise of bouldering (it makes sense, but I'm not certain). Since I'm OK with someone ticking a 6-hold problem in the Buttermilks, it only follows that it will happen on a 60-move bolt line in the Gorge.
I just don't see it being such a problem to deserve the pissing match that has gone on here, but I'm amused to contribute my two cents!Tongue
Chris


Partner cracklover


Sep 19, 2007, 6:39 AM
Post #144 of 317 (7917 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10054

Re: [jt512] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Fuck you, Jay. I climb primarily for the love of climbing. Your claim that the love I feel is a delusion, and that climbing is simply about a desire for higher numbers is a slap in the face, and debasement of something you either don't understand, or don't respect.

Improvement is a small reason for why I, and many people I know, climb. If you can't appreciate much beyond that drive for numbers, fine. But don't claim that it's weakness or self-delusion.

GO


microbarn


Sep 19, 2007, 7:18 AM
Post #145 of 317 (7890 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920

Re: [ajkclay] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

ajkclay wrote:
PS unless someone quotes this, he'll never see it (I'm a JT killfile veteran)
Unless I am mistaken, his kill file also erases things in quotes too. So, he still won't see it. I don't know though because I don't use it.

In any case, a quote by someone else in the killfile (me) still won't change things. It would be just as invisible. Smile


Partner macherry


Sep 19, 2007, 7:37 AM
Post #146 of 317 (7872 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15808

Re: [cracklover] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Fuck you, Jay. I climb primarily for the love of climbing. Your claim that the love I feel is a delusion, and that climbing is simply about a desire for higher numbers is a slap in the face, and debasement of something you either don't understand, or don't respect.

Improvement is a small reason for why I, and many people I know, climb. If you can't appreciate much beyond that drive for numbers, fine. But don't claim that it's weakness or self-delusion.

GO

thanks for summing up why i climb....much like why i ski!!!


Partner sevrdhed


Sep 19, 2007, 11:23 AM
Post #147 of 317 (7799 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 4, 2004
Posts: 923

Re: [macherry] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

While you guys have been arguing about this, I went ahead and scrubbed off the tick marks on all of your projects, and then flashed them.


Clean up your ticks.


Partner cracklover


Sep 19, 2007, 2:00 PM
Post #148 of 317 (7752 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10054

Re: [sevrdhed] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

By the way, I've been sport climbing a bit more than usual lately. And thanks, Jay, for the useful tips in that venue. Anyway, last time I was at the local sport crag, I did two routes that were pretty hard for me. The easier one I managed to onsight, despite it having very tricky and devious sequences. I enjoyed the climb, and was proud of that onsight. It was not ticked up. The harder climb was all ticked up. There were clearly several tickers, as there was definitely more than one sequence that had been ticked. Again, I had to find my own way, although this time some of the hidden holds were pointed out to me.

I can't really say that the ticks bothered me. Both climbs were just mid-level sport routes, with every hold caked in chalk. Plus, on the second route, it was a bit too hard for me to onsight. But I can appreciate how someone looking to have the experience I'd had on the first route - to work out the moves themselves, might have been distracted by the tick marks on the second climb, and had them blow the onsight, either by being drawn in the wrong direction and falling, or drawn in the right direction and succeeding (but not without beta).

Anyway, I guess I'd care more on a trad route in a pristine setting, like the OP suggests.

GO


golsen


Sep 19, 2007, 2:15 PM
Post #149 of 317 (7739 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 361

Re: [cracklover] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Jay should save his breath for this discussion, he will need it to blow up his date...


fenix83
Moderator

Sep 19, 2007, 2:20 PM
Post #150 of 317 (7732 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 22, 2004
Posts: 2397

Re: [jt512] Sigh, back on the soapbox [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
Pretty much everybody in every sport tries to get better. You don't see gymnasts saying, I'm happy with an 8 on the parallel bars, because I like the movement.

If a gymnast gets an 8 on parallel bars s/he is competitive and therefore by definition chasing numbers in at least that facet of gymnastics, hardly an appropriate comparison to a sport in which a large number of people never compete.

jt512 wrote:
The is primarily a climbing phenomenon, whereby weak climbers pretend that staying weak and climbing at moderate levels is on a higher spiritual plane than trying to actually improve one's climbing. They call the latter "number chasing" in a thinly veiled attempt to make themselves feel better about their own inability or laziness.

Horseshit, "number chasing" is about attitude, not about which number you happen to be chasing. I have met .10 number chasers and .13 number chasers, I have also met some very laid back climbers who climbed at all sorts of grades. IMO a number chaser is a person who tries to improve just for the sake of the grade (and usually the spray), not as a natural part of doing what they love, not to have access to more routes or to a specific climb they want to do.

Your response to a previous poster was something to the effect of "your hardest climb is a 5.10". This, to me, is a number-chasers expression. The grade of the climb has very little, if anything, to do with the intensity of the experience.

jt512 wrote:
Your holier-than-thou, "if that's how you define your climbing, blah, blah, blah," is precisely what I'm talking about. Incredibly, you've actually convinced yourself of the moral superiority of mediocre performance. Amazing.

Do I enjoy progress and improvement in my climbing, yes of course I do. Does climbing at my limit (whatever the limit might be at that point) have a particular allure and reward, definitely. However, the grade of the climb is hardly a defining factor in my opinion of said climb, rarely a reason a choose to climb it and not necessarily correlated to the intensity/enjoyment of the experience (same applies to climbers).

Each person climbs for a different reason, those who climb solely/mostly to "conquer grade" are number chasers (and IMO are missing out on a huge part of the experience), it doesn't mean those of us who don't chase numbers are lazy or mediocre.

-F

PD: As to tick marks, they can be extremely annoying and I rarely find them useful (I've actually been confused by them more times than I have been assisted by them).

Whether you choose to tick or not is your own choice, but in most scenarios I would appreciate you removing your ticks and giving me the same choice.

Granted, if the tick marks are discrete and properly made (not huge sploches, easily removed and not on every damn hold all the way up) I rarely consider them anything more than a nuisance.

-F

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : General

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$107.96 (10% off)
$205.16 (10% off)
$26.96 (10% off)
$123.30 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook