|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 12, 2005, 5:17 PM
Post #51 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I'll stick with the B-rating system. Works fine for years. If by "works fine" you mean "completely fails to do anything one would expect a rating system to do", then yes. ;) Right. In other words, it doesn't provide big enough numbers for you to spray with. B1 and B2 work perfectly well enough--unless your ego is hopelessly tied to the numbers you boulder. Curt
And
In reply to: Please explain.
The point of a difficulty rating system is to place (as accurately as is possible) a complex set of contributing factors on a one-dimensional (or other small-d) scale so that we can reason about things more easily. The practical benefits are quite numerous. For example, determining which problems/routes we want to try, or whether we want to try for an onsight or flash on a given route. Tracking one's progress as one becomes a better climber. Finding which areas you want to go to (especially if there are long approaches). Determining what will be an adequate warmup and what won't. Still another use is a potential safety issue as regarding committing routes (or perhaps highball problems) where falling would be dangerous.
As an aside; I don't know why climbers (mostly plateaued ones, it seems :P) are so fearful of "spray". Rating systems have many uses beyond informing others of your accomplishments (which, I'd point out Curt, your profile uses the B-scale to do).
Back to the point: the B-scale fails to adequately serve the above purposes. Or at least, does not serve them nearly as well as other scales which are available. The B-scale probably made sense when it was invented. And I'm sure it worked quite well for a while for specific things, and most particularly for elite boulderers (such as John Gill, himself) who were climbing hard B2's and putting up B3's that lasted for a while.
But for the rest of us, the system has some real problems. One such problem is that it is has too low of resolution (especially at the low end of difficulty) to be practically useful in many of the above ways. There's an interesting article (primarily about height and bouldering ratings) that includes some thoughts on the scale resolution topic available here. The basic concept is that the width of a number in the scale should be small enough that you don't feel like a given number covers a vast range of difficulty (usually resulting in the addition of pluses and such to the system), and wide enough that a sufficient percentage of people suggesting grades will fall within the same number (or at most a bordering number). (As an aside, this is one reason people think the Font bouldering system is better than the Hueco system, in the lower grades).
Then there is a slightly more insidious problem. Originally, B1 was defined as "harder than the hardest traditional roped climbs" (according to Gill, around 5.10 at the time---and, I'd point out it is a definition of bouldering ratings in terms of YDS, which you claim "nonsensical"). The idea being that as people climb harder on ropes, B1 problems would no longer be B1---B1 would get harder, and so would B2, and B3 problems would be repeated and downgraded to either B2 or B1. So, if the system were used as designed, ratings would be quite dynamic (requiring something more advanced than your typical printed guidebook to keep up!). However this concept somewhat fell apart once sport climbing came along (removing the arbitrary, contrived obstactles to difficulty on routes); and even the hardest traditional free climbs are now so hard, that if properly used, B1 should probably be around 13+ (which would leave many climbers with no ratings for their boulder problems).
Gill admits this problem:
In reply to: As traditional climbs became harder, the whole system would shift accordingly. It goes without saying that the acceptance of sport climbing in this country spelled the effective end of the B-system, since sport climbing is, in a sense, extended (although more inconvenient and tiring) bouldering.
So in practice, if I (a weak boulderer) go to an area I've not been to and the problems are rated on the B-scale, I first have to think about what year were these problems first (or last) ascended in order to have any sort of relative clue how hard they are, and since the scale is so granular, I'll still have no real idea how hard a given problem is until I do it.
Since I know jgill is reading this thread, I'd like to add that none of this is intended as an insult (to him) of any sort (not that I think he'd take it that way)---just my opinion of the technical merits of his system when you try to apply it to modern bouldering. 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 12, 2005, 5:47 PM
Post #52 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
fracture,
That was a very good and well thought out post. Here are a few comments from the "other side" of the issue. You claim that the "B" scale does not have enough "resolution" to be useful. I claim the "V" and other finely divided scales have too much resolution to be useful. Because of height differences and other things people can often not agree on a "V" scale grade for a given problem. In fact, the opinions of different boulderers may vary by several "V" grades. Mathematically, I am saying that the standard deviation (of the rating) around the mean spreads across multiple "V" grades for many problems. I do not think this is particularly useful.
With regard to the "B" scale constantly sliding with the climbing standards of the day, I would say that stopped in the late 1970s or early 1980s anyway. It is unlikely that very many harder single moves on rock have been done since then. Increases in both bouldering and climbing difficulty have been achieved primarily by adding length to boulder problems and hence incorporating more of an endurance component.
Those of us who were bouldering in that time frame know perfectly well what "B1" or "B2" means in terms of difficulty, and yet sometimes we will disagree if a problem is B1 or B2. If we can't sometimes tell the difference between those two grades, how in the world can you tell if a problem is V4, V5, V6, V7, V8, V9, V10.....etc?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
tradnomad
Jan 12, 2005, 6:01 PM
Post #53 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2004
Posts: 201
|
In reply to: It is unlikely that very many harder single moves on rock have been done since then. Increases in both bouldering and climbing difficulty have been achieved primarily by adding length to boulder problems and hence incorporating more of an endurance component.
I call BS on that statement!! How did you manage to come to that conclusion???
Was there a point in the 80s where some climbers reach the absolute limits of human strength and technique??
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Jan 12, 2005, 6:07 PM
Post #54 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
OWC, as strange as bubbas methodology may be, I hope you read that list of your posts again and consider playing a little nicer. Calling people all sorts of names contributes nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 12, 2005, 6:15 PM
Post #55 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: It is unlikely that very many harder single moves on rock have been done since then. Increases in both bouldering and climbing difficulty have been achieved primarily by adding length to boulder problems and hence incorporating more of an endurance component. I call BS on that statement!! How did you manage to come to that conclusion??? Was there a point in the 80s where some climbers reach the absolute limits of human strength and technique??
I base it on the well known fact that there were boulder problems done in that time period that still have not been repeated, even though many of the best boulderers of later generations have tried--and failed.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
tradnomad
Jan 12, 2005, 6:39 PM
Post #56 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2004
Posts: 201
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: It is unlikely that very many harder single moves on rock have been done since then. Increases in both bouldering and climbing difficulty have been achieved primarily by adding length to boulder problems and hence incorporating more of an endurance component. I call BS on that statement!! How did you manage to come to that conclusion??? Was there a point in the 80s where some climbers reach the absolute limits of human strength and technique?? I base it on the well known fact that there were boulder problems done in that time period that still have not been repeated, even though many of the best boulderers of later generations have tried--and failed. Curt
OK, just not well enough known for me to have heard of them... Still I'd want to hear that from a second source and see a list of who's attempted to repeat the problems before I'd believe you 100%.
I'm sure there are more obscure problems that have never been repeated... But there's lots of news about the top climbers attempting to repeat (and repeating) the newer unrepeated lines, but none about anyone trying to repeat lines that haven't seen a second ascent for 20+ years. And I think the latter would be much more interesting/newsworthy.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 12, 2005, 7:08 PM
Post #57 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: It is unlikely that very many harder single moves on rock have been done since then. Increases in both bouldering and climbing difficulty have been achieved primarily by adding length to boulder problems and hence incorporating more of an endurance component. I call BS on that statement!! How did you manage to come to that conclusion??? Was there a point in the 80s where some climbers reach the absolute limits of human strength and technique?? I base it on the well known fact that there were boulder problems done in that time period that still have not been repeated, even though many of the best boulderers of later generations have tried--and failed. Curt OK, just not well enough known for me to have heard of them... Still I'd want to hear that from a second source and see a list of who's attempted to repeat the problems before I'd believe you 100%. I'm sure there are more obscure problems that have never been repeated... But there's lots of news about the top climbers attempting to repeat (and repeating) the newer unrepeated lines, but none about anyone trying to repeat lines that haven't seen a second ascent for 20+ years. And I think the latter would be much more interesting/newsworthy.
Boulder and Ft. Collins, Colorado are not exactly "obscure" bouldering areas. There have been entire threads here at RC.com about the boulder problems I am talking about. Do a search for "Jim Holloway."
Or, you can try to prove me wrong another way. Just try to name even one newer boulder problem that is short (say, 3 or 4 hard moves) that has a difficulty level as hard as Jim Holloway's unrepeated "big three" problems from 20+ years ago. I bet you can't. The big "V" number problems of today all tend to be pretty long.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
karl_hungus
Jan 12, 2005, 8:19 PM
Post #58 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2003
Posts: 22
|
In reply to: Just try to name even one newer boulder problem that is short (say, 3 or 4 hard moves) that has a difficulty level as hard as Jim Holloway's unrepeated "big three" problems from 20+ years ago. I bet you can't.
I pretty much agree, however Dominator comes to mind. Spectre as well. Both very hard, both pretty short. But as you said, both repeated a few times, although both are in areas of higher interest to those who are capable (sort of).
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 12, 2005, 10:10 PM
Post #59 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: You claim that the "B" scale does not have enough "resolution" to be useful. I claim the "V" and other finely divided scales have too much resolution to be useful. Because of height differences and other things people can often not agree on a "V" scale grade for a given problem. In fact, the opinions of different boulderers may vary by several "V" grades. Mathematically, I am saying that the standard deviation (of the rating) around the mean spreads across multiple "V" grades for many problems. I do not think this is particularly useful.
Bouldering is obviously more prone to body-dependent ratings than routes (where it tends to even out more often, because routes are usually longer than boulder problems), so such occurances are expected in some cases. However, you're ignoring the fact that a large portion of the time people can agree on a V-grade for a problem. As you imply, the standard deviation is going to be different for different problems, so on the one hand you have problems where the V-scale works perfectly, and others where no scale works particularly well. (This is, of course, the fundamental problem of trying to pretend an objective number can be assigned to a subjective thing; but the fact that some cases are weird does not compromise the types of usefulness I described earlier in the other cases where things work out better).
As long as you don't think of the V-grade as being set in stone it is still more useful to have more notches on the scale.
In reply to: With regard to the "B" scale constantly sliding with the climbing standards of the day, I would say that stopped in the late 1970s or early 1980s anyway. It is unlikely that very many harder single moves on rock have been done since then. Increases in both bouldering and climbing difficulty have been achieved primarily by adding length to boulder problems and hence incorporating more of an endurance component.
Hey, careful Curt! You're going to end up agreeing with me about the role of endurance in bouldering, and maybe even that The Wheel of Life is a boulder problem. :D
In reply to: Those of us who were bouldering in that time frame know perfectly well what "B1" or "B2" means in terms of difficulty, and yet sometimes we will disagree if a problem is B1 or B2. If we can't sometimes tell the difference between those two grades, how in the world can you tell if a problem is V4, V5, V6, V7, V8, V9, V10.....etc?
This is understandable, for example if a problem is around the border of V7 and V8 (which is generally where people say B1 turns into B2). But keep in mind, that if you can't tell whether it is B1 or B2, you are also in the same category as someone who can't tell if it is V4 or V13, because of the extremely low resolution of the B-scale.
|
|
|
|
|
hema
Jan 12, 2005, 10:23 PM
Post #60 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2003
Posts: 251
|
Hardest boulder TRAVERSE = Wheel of Life, hardest boulder PROBLEM = Torino '78 (altough nothing says you can't call traverse a problem, so also Wheel of Life).
Torino was climbed a bit earlier, but just from a vague memory (if someone want's to verify/prove me wrong have a look at www.8a.nu ).
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 12, 2005, 10:37 PM
Post #61 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: Just try to name even one newer boulder problem that is short (say, 3 or 4 hard moves) that has a difficulty level as hard as Jim Holloway's unrepeated "big three" problems from 20+ years ago. I bet you can't. I pretty much agree, however Dominator comes to mind. Spectre as well. Both very hard, both pretty short. But as you said, both repeated a few times, although both are in areas of higher interest to those who are capable (sort of).
The Fly is also supposed to be V13. It's something like 4 moves....
But Curt is probably mostly correct. Most of the very hardest problems involve an endurance component, and generally much more than 5 moves. (I think Torino '78 is supposed to be a 15 move problem, btw).
|
|
|
|
|
ron_jeremy
Jan 15, 2005, 6:46 PM
Post #62 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 21
|
All sounds pretty complicated to me. I started bouldering pre-V scale and either didn't rate problems (the best IMO) or used the B-Scale if any ratings were available. I just figured that unrated problems were 5.11 or easier, B1's were 5.12, B2's 5.13, and B3's impossible for me. Always seemed easy to figure out what I wanted to climb using this scale.
The specialization of the V-Scale more dramatically exasparates the difference between difficulties depending on body type than evern the 5.abcd issues of rope climbing.
Case in point, there's a dyno problem that leads into a highball near the start of the Gunsmoke traverse at J-Tree. Two good holds, decent feet, and a big throw to a sharp cheesegrater knob. I always figured it was bordering on the unrated/B1 area for me. One day, I watched this guy that was at least 6'10" tall static the move and cruise the sketchy highball (which at the time was rated B1 in the old J-Tree bouldering guide but that didn't include the dyno (which wasn't necessary, just a fun problem).
Now imagine if the V-scale were applied. I would put it somewhere between V3 & V5 but for him it was V0- at best.
I understand the appeal of the V-Scale, it's way more spraylord to say "I sent a V8 today) instead of "I sent a B2".
It's really fun to try and climb hard and not weigh yourself down with numbers and grades.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 25, 2005, 3:55 PM
Post #63 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
Now there's also the story of two worlds from Dave Graham. He's basically calling it V15, and possibly the hardest problem in the world, and saying much of the other stuff (including problems he repeated, like Dreamtime) is soft.
On the subject of short problems that Curt brought up: the sit start of the problem is a 7-move sequence that Dave says is 8B or 8B+ (V13 or V14).
|
|
|
|
|
rocknalaska
Jan 26, 2005, 11:28 PM
Post #64 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
I'm impressed by both sides of the argument, and just to throw in a few more wrenches:
Curt: I assume the difficult moves you are referring to are Jim Holloway's problems. Wasn't he quite tall, and aren't these all big moves? I would contend that harder moves have been done, and one reason we haven't seen very many repeats of his problems is due to the relative difficulty. Also, to throw out a few short problems that are given a rating of v14 or higher to show a higher level of difficulty:
Muerte: v14 Toni Lamprecht
Slashface: v14 Fred Nicole
Brad Pitt sds: v14 Thomas Willenburg
I know there are more than this, but these are just off the top of my head.
I would suggest that there are instances and situations where the old B system is more effective at grading problems, and there are times when the V-scale is better. After climbing for 10 years I have a pretty good awareness of the rock, and can look at a problem and guage it pretty well, so the B scale works well for me. I think which scale you prefer also has to do with how you view climbing. Some people don't want as little info as possible about the climbs so teh experience is more of a "adventure", some want as much info as possible.
Personally, as far as ratings in general are concerned, they are a wonderful tool, but that is it. Just a tool.
btw: I prefer the b scale, but use the v scale for ease.
Todd
|
|
|
|
|
scottcody
Jan 27, 2005, 12:01 AM
Post #65 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2003
Posts: 577
|
If were going to Morrison to climb "Otis" would I tell my wife I was going climbing or bouldering?
Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
bubbahotep
Jan 27, 2005, 12:54 AM
Post #66 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 97
|
In reply to: If were going to Morrison to climb "Otis" would I tell my wife I was going climbing or bouldering? Just curious.
Stay out of trouble and tell her the truth.
You are really going to the Morrison Inn to drink Margaritas!
|
|
|
|
|
lostinvegas
Feb 19, 2005, 3:01 PM
Post #67 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2003
Posts: 31
|
Getting back to the original question, Dai Koyamada also did Byakudou in Hourai, Japan which he rated 5-6 dans (V15-16). And this is not an endurance problem. I don't think it has seen any repeat yet. It could be one of hardest problems with highest concentration of hardest moves.
|
|
|
|
|
clmbr3
Feb 27, 2005, 11:54 PM
Post #68 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2004
Posts: 35
|
Jim Holloway's 3 big problems are pretty damn remarkable.
There is no doubt that he was amazingly strong (and I think Bachar called him "the smoothest motherfcker I've ever seen") - but I wonder if part of the difficulty was relative due to his height. It'd be interesting to see a big dyno guy- like Klem Loskot (6'2", I think)- come and try Holloway's problems.
Regardless, though, it is interesting that most of the hardest problems in the world tend to be long. I think this is partially because it is more difficult to find 2-4 moves that will end up being right at your limits. i.e. it's easier to try to link a 15 move problem for months of effort than it is to try and stick something with just 2 moves for month after month. If you fail on a move 100+ times then it is harder to imagine that you'll do it (compared with failing to link a problem on which you've done all the moves individually)
Though it hasn't been done yet, the one move dyno that Sharma never quite got in India is probably one of the hardest single moves around...
|
|
|
|
|
lucas_timmer
Feb 28, 2005, 2:25 PM
Post #69 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Posts: 562
|
I'm shure maybe hust 10% of all the boulder problems have been done, and there are still many left to climb.So it's impossible to say which one is the hardest they aren't even all known.
|
|
|
|
|
squierbypetzl
Moderator
Jul 9, 2005, 8:04 AM
Post #70 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 3431
|
Couldn´t read all the posts... way too many for my 4:30 in the morning self. I seem to recall having seen or heard about Sharma and Caldwell doing something over in Switzerland that was *the hardest* boulder problem yet.
|
|
|
|
|
squierbypetzl
Moderator
Jul 9, 2005, 8:20 AM
Post #71 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 3431
|
I just read fracture´s post and yeah, that´s right, Dreamtime in Switzerland is supposed to be V15 and Graham bumped the bar up a notch
|
|
|
|
|
mattmax45
Jul 12, 2005, 1:17 AM
Post #72 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2004
Posts: 183
|
Not the you need it Curt but I got your back, you're right mate the hardest problems from the ancient powerhouses still have yet to be done, or repeated more than once, it's funny over in the sport climbing forum all of us got into this argument that the harder the route, the longer they get, like bouldering, I personally like 3-8 move probs, nothing but raw power and strength, kinda like Mr. Holloway I suppose, all of the hardest new prob are quite long. Here's to the original hard men of the power era. :righton: Maybe I'll get lucky and meet a few someday.
Later Matt. :wink:
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: It is unlikely that very many harder single moves on rock have been done since then. Increases in both bouldering and climbing difficulty have been achieved primarily by adding length to boulder problems and hence incorporating more of an endurance component. I call BS on that statement!! How did you manage to come to that conclusion??? Was there a point in the 80s where some climbers reach the absolute limits of human strength and technique?? I base it on the well known fact that there were boulder problems done in that time period that still have not been repeated, even though many of the best boulderers of later generations have tried--and failed. Curt OK, just not well enough known for me to have heard of them... Still I'd want to hear that from a second source and see a list of who's attempted to repeat the problems before I'd believe you 100%. I'm sure there are more obscure problems that have never been repeated... But there's lots of news about the top climbers attempting to repeat (and repeating) the newer unrepeated lines, but none about anyone trying to repeat lines that haven't seen a second ascent for 20+ years. And I think the latter would be much more interesting/newsworthy. Boulder and Ft. Collins, Colorado are not exactly "obscure" bouldering areas. There have been entire threads here at RC.com about the boulder problems I am talking about. Do a search for "Jim Holloway." Or, you can try to prove me wrong another way. Just try to name even one newer boulder problem that is short (say, 3 or 4 hard moves) that has a difficulty level as hard as Jim Holloway's unrepeated "big three" problems from 20+ years ago. I bet you can't. The big "V" number problems of today all tend to be pretty long. Curt |
|
|
|
|
ikefromla
Jul 12, 2005, 1:21 AM
Post #73 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1216
|
In reply to: I just read fracture´s post and yeah, that´s right, Dreamtime in Switzerland is supposed to be V15 |
|
|
|
|
mattmax45
Jul 12, 2005, 1:43 AM
Post #74 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2004
Posts: 183
|
In reply to: In reply to: I just read fracture´s post and yeah, that´s right, Dreamtime in Switzerland is supposed to be V15 no it's not. it has been "altered" or "aggressively cleaned" down to about V12. reportedly, Nicole was crying under the boulder when he found out.
Thats F--ked up people need to leave S--- alone. Nicole could crush Grahams skull with his hands. :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
ikefromla
Jul 12, 2005, 1:49 AM
Post #75 of 84
(12547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1216
|
In reply to: Thats F--ked up people need to leave S--- alone. Nicole could crush Grahams skull with his hands. :twisted: |
|
|
|
|
|
