|
teh_chariot
Dec 11, 2006, 6:19 PM
Post #1 of 202
(11015 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2006
Posts: 22
|
In my opinion its Fred Nicole.
(This post was edited by teh_chariot on Dec 11, 2006, 6:33 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
johnathon78
Dec 11, 2006, 6:37 PM
Post #2 of 202
(10992 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2004
Posts: 340
|
In my opinion its this guy named Frank that lives near me. He boulders like V3 constantly! Not just once or twice....but every day. And, he doesent even brag about it. He's the man. I already hate this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
jh_angel
Dec 11, 2006, 7:26 PM
Post #3 of 202
(10932 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Posts: 232
|
I'm casting my vote for Fred as well.
-Josh
|
|
|
|
|
mchristie
Dec 12, 2006, 7:02 PM
Post #4 of 202
(10813 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2006
Posts: 51
|
Jim Holloway....hands down. Nicole is a badass, but not compared to Holloway. Holloway put up problems in the 70's with EBs and fires as the "latest hot shoe" that have yet to be repeated today! that's v12-13 in 1977.
Then there is John Gill......the one responsible for bouldering as we know it. Had he not come along you would be climbing trad right now.
Modern climbers are currently pushing the sport, but the pioneers were far ahead of their time!
|
|
|
|
|
freeforsum
Dec 12, 2006, 7:23 PM
Post #5 of 202
(10796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2005
Posts: 56
|
Who cares? Its just bouldering. bouldering alone is lame.
|
|
|
|
|
calii22
Dec 13, 2006, 10:28 PM
Post #6 of 202
(10698 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2004
Posts: 45
|
your dumb mister
|
|
|
|
|
musicman1586
Dec 14, 2006, 10:57 PM
Post #7 of 202
(10638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 488
|
Dai Koyamada, Fred Nicole, David Graham, to name a few
But in the end, who cares? 99.9% of us will never be near that level, so I think the more important boulderers are the ones that have done the most for us mortals, with guys like John Gill and John Sherman being my two choices.
|
|
|
|
|
mushroomsamba
Dec 14, 2006, 11:44 PM
Post #8 of 202
(10614 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2006
Posts: 389
|
John Gill. We wouldn't be doing what we are today without him
|
|
|
|
|
calii22
Dec 15, 2006, 12:39 AM
Post #9 of 202
(10588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2004
Posts: 45
|
you guys are forgeting sharma and moon how could you forget sharma and moon |
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 15, 2006, 7:13 AM
Post #10 of 202
(10428 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
freeforsum wrote: Who cares? Its just bouldering. bouldering alone is lame.
Funny how all incredibly weak climbers say that.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
ninja_climber
Dec 15, 2006, 8:39 AM
Post #11 of 202
(10416 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2005
Posts: 403
|
^This man speaks the truth....
|
|
|
|
|
gunksgoer
Dec 15, 2006, 4:30 PM
Post #13 of 202
(10304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 1290
|
My vote is for Jim Holloway.
|
|
|
|
|
munky
Dec 15, 2006, 5:13 PM
Post #14 of 202
(10284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2006
Posts: 358
|
What about these kids nowadays. Nobody has mentioned Daniel Woods, Paul Robinson, Jon Cardwell, Ethan Pringle, etc. They're picking up where the last generation has left off. Most of these kids have been pulling on double digit problems for the past 5 years, albeit mostly indoors, but are now taking it outside w/ a vengence. I think I read that Woods is repeating Graham and Litz problems in RMNP in a couple of tries. That's ridiculous. I've climbed w/ James and I know how inhuman his strength is and to think about someone being that much stronger is scary. I don't know but I wouldn't be too suprised if we see these kids take the next step.
Munky
|
|
|
|
|
Spaceman617
Dec 15, 2006, 5:27 PM
Post #15 of 202
(10191 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2006
Posts: 4
|
I vote for Jim Link. He got me started bouldering.
|
|
|
|
|
munky
Dec 15, 2006, 5:56 PM
Post #16 of 202
(10172 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2006
Posts: 358
|
This is a bit off topic but I wonder why we havn't seen a really strong boulderer who is really tall. I'm talking 6'4 and up. The only one I can think of who was really big was Holloway and I would argue that this definitely gave him an advantage on some of his problems in Boulder. Just curious what your thoughts would be. Imagine a gym bred youngster (16-20) at around 6'6". That combo could produce new lines way above anything out there.
|
|
|
|
|
climbing_guy295
Dec 15, 2006, 7:52 PM
Post #17 of 202
(10122 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2006
Posts: 41
|
Chris Sharma.
|
|
|
|
|
musicman1586
Dec 15, 2006, 9:19 PM
Post #18 of 202
(10094 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 488
|
munky wrote: This is a bit off topic but I wonder why we havn't seen a really strong boulderer who is really tall. I'm talking 6'4 and up. The only one I can think of who was really big was Holloway and I would argue that this definitely gave him an advantage on some of his problems in Boulder. Just curious what your thoughts would be. Imagine a gym bred youngster (16-20) at around 6'6". That combo could produce new lines way above anything out there.
That's not necessarily true, tall climbers have some advantages, but they have some disadvantages. Tall climbers have more reach no doubt, but they take up more space and that makes it harder for them to get into cramped positions. It's a trade-off, and so some problems they will have an advantage at, others they will have a much harder time with. Height really means nothing, you just learn to work with what you've got. Two of the best climbers I know are exact opposites, one is 5'3", the other is 6'0-2" and their styles are different, but they ultimately get through the same routes.
|
|
|
|
|
erin
Dec 15, 2006, 9:20 PM
Post #19 of 202
(10094 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2005
Posts: 149
|
The best boulderer is the one who never boulders.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 16, 2006, 1:47 AM
Post #20 of 202
(10054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
erin wrote: The best boulderer is the one who never boulders.
Well, if you "follow 10b sport" as your profile suggests, bouldering probably ain't for you.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
kydd76
Dec 16, 2006, 2:54 AM
Post #21 of 202
(10036 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Posts: 228
|
Dam! I say john gill, He was followed by Holloway next down the line, all the way to the kids pulling down V14+ ?
|
|
|
|
|
jh_angel
Dec 16, 2006, 3:14 AM
Post #22 of 202
(10019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Posts: 232
|
curt wrote: erin wrote: The best boulderer is the one who never boulders. Well, if you "follow 10b sport" as your profile suggests, bouldering probably ain't for you. Curt
Actually it sounds like that is exactly what she needs... if she's a number chaser.
-Josh
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Dec 16, 2006, 3:57 AM
Post #23 of 202
(10001 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
I could say "that's a little harsh," but you'd probably just get off on that. so I won't. ha. I thought she was going for a humorous, zen/grasshopper type thing, rather than some slight against bouldering.
on topic: I think we need some bouldering baseball cards or something, so we can more easily compare stats, sending averages, FAs batted in. blah, who gives a fuck?
(This post was edited by zeke_sf on Dec 16, 2006, 4:11 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
freeforsum
Dec 20, 2006, 5:01 PM
Post #24 of 202
(9908 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2005
Posts: 56
|
curt wrote: freeforsum wrote: Who cares? Its just bouldering. bouldering alone is lame. Funny how all incredibly weak climbers say that. Curt
No, I just think bouldering is practice for roping up. If all you do is boulder, then you’re missing the point of climbing. Going places on a rock wall that has a sense of commitment to get there is part of the fun of climbing. Not just “how hard can you pull”. That is the ego part of it. Don’t get me wrong. I have had some really great experiences bouldering, but roping up and climbing more than 25 feet Is were its at.
|
|
|
|
|
dlintz
Dec 20, 2006, 5:10 PM
Post #25 of 202
(9903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2002
Posts: 1982
|
freeforsum wrote: curt wrote: freeforsum wrote: Who cares? Its just bouldering. bouldering alone is lame. Funny how all incredibly weak climbers say that. Curt No, I just think bouldering is practice for roping up. If all you do is boulder, then you’re missing the point of climbing. Going places on a rock wall that has a sense of commitment to get there is part of the fun of climbing. Not just “how hard can you pull”. That is the ego part of it. Don’t get me wrong. I have had some really great experiences bouldering, but roping up and climbing more than 25 feet Is were its at.
Ah, the true "point of climbing"....thanks for clearing that up.
d.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
