|
hosh
Feb 19, 2007, 5:37 PM
Post #26 of 30
(1586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 1662
|
I'm going to chime in here, didn't see anyone make this remark yet... Perhaps they chose Chris's DWS precisely because it didn't involve the certainty of death. Perhpas it's the magazine's way of being responsible and not promoting a deadly practice to a bunch of young, impresionable, internet posting climbers. I don't usually read Climbing, I let my subscription lapse. I'd rather get my climbing news from a reliable source, "RC.n00b" 
Also, I think it was a little wortheless giving Chris a golden piton because unless I'm mistaken, he doesn't aid climb and doesn't nail. Heck, people who solo don't really have any use for pitons anyway, why not give them a "golden pillow" award or something more useful to them...?
just kidding.
So anyone interestied in going soloing? I'll pull belay duty...
hosh.
(This post was edited by hosh on Feb 19, 2007, 5:39 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
fancyclaps
Feb 19, 2007, 6:27 PM
Post #27 of 30
(1543 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 210
|
I disagree with the idea that someone "pushes soloing forward" or "brings an era back" by doing some hard onsight soloing. This implies that somehow everyone else will change what they are doing because someone climbs something hard without a rope. People will do what they do be it bouldering, trad climbing, or soloing and occasionally magazines will give attention to an individual for doing something someone else has yet to do in a field. Does this change what everyone else in the field is doing? No. It just means that whomever is keeping the Big List of Very Important Rockclimbing Numbers changes a digit or two.
Now things like new gear, new materials, new techniques, those can all change rock climbing, however Sharma climbing 5.15 or Reardon onsight soloing something that involves certain death has little impact on anyone but them. It IS cool to know what the best climbers are doing, but I think magazines propogate the myth that it is alot more important than it really is. Hence the OP getting upset over the award.
|
|
|
|
|
kyote321
Feb 19, 2007, 6:28 PM
Post #28 of 30
(1543 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 636
|
so, the assumption here seems to be that to be truly soloing one has to be risking certain death, as opposed to possible death and/or severe injury or drowning. interesting.
to be pushing limits of difficulty one has to work the route. in the case of DWS that involves to hangdogging or toproping. so, to be soloing one would have to attempt the 15a - succeed in glory or die a quick death, having 'balls' as it were.
personally i am much more impressed by the stamina of DWS than someone soloing at whatever grade. stamina balls as opposed to do or die balls. but that is me. i'll save the russian roulette drama (balls) for the movies.
|
|
|
|
|
musicman1586
Feb 20, 2007, 12:54 AM
Post #30 of 30
(1462 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 488
|
fancyclaps wrote: I disagree with the idea that someone "pushes soloing forward" or "brings an era back" by doing some hard onsight soloing. This implies that somehow everyone else will change what they are doing because someone climbs something hard without a rope. People will do what they do be it bouldering, trad climbing, or soloing and occasionally magazines will give attention to an individual for doing something someone else has yet to do in a field. Does this change what everyone else in the field is doing? No. It just means that whomever is keeping the Big List of Very Important Rockclimbing Numbers changes a digit or two. Now things like new gear, new materials, new techniques, those can all change rock climbing, however Sharma climbing 5.15 or Reardon onsight soloing something that involves certain death has little impact on anyone but them. It IS cool to know what the best climbers are doing, but I think magazines propogate the myth that it is alot more important than it really is. Hence the OP getting upset over the award.
I think this is at the heart of the matter, and brings up a good point, Sharma climbing a single new .15 doesn't do as much to raise the bar for all climbers as a whole, as we all know that he is capable of doing so now, it is ascents like that of Caldwell, Donahue, and Roed's all-free 50 hour, ground-up, first-go success on Linea di Eleganza that really push the sport forward, because it makes a whole community look at alpine climbing in a new light, because it raises the bar not just for mutant climbers, but for average climbers, inspiring them to pursue ascents in the same single-push lightning quick style, while at the same time, it will be an inspiration to those talented enough to take this new view and push hard alpine climbing even higher. Taking this point of view, Sharma's ascent of Es Pontas and La Rambla Direct within a span of some odd months shows that standards are rising and that is something that can inspire a whole community, but his single ascent of Es Pontas I don't think really does, if that makes any sense, not sure how I can express what I'm thinking on that one. On a similar point to what I said about Linea Di Eleganza, Macleod's ascent of Rhapsody doesn't just push hard trad grades higher, which has little effect of the average climber, but it pushes the mind set and ethic of "meeting the rock on its own terms" (to quote the article, which I think said it quite well). If Macleod can do it at such a high level, than that leaves the rest of us to question whether to pull out the bolt gun or not.
This was kinda a thread hijack, as its not exactly on par with the OP's original subject, but I think it still can be applied regardless.
Kyle
btw, how've you been Mike, we need to get out and climb again sometime.
(This post was edited by musicman1586 on Feb 20, 2007, 12:55 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
