|
fracture
Mar 13, 2007, 2:46 AM
Post #76 of 202
(4467 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
curt wrote: 60 moves is not a boulder problem. He should have called it 5.15 or something.
Incoherent nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 13, 2007, 4:01 AM
Post #77 of 202
(4450 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
fracture wrote: curt wrote: 60 moves is not a boulder problem. He should have called it 5.15 or something. Incoherent nonsense.
Facts are often incoherent to those with limited intellectual capacity. pfffft
Curt
(This post was edited by curt on Mar 13, 2007, 4:01 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Mar 13, 2007, 4:26 AM
Post #78 of 202
(4441 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
curt wrote: fracture wrote: curt wrote: 60 moves is not a boulder problem. He should have called it 5.15 or something. Incoherent nonsense. Facts are often incoherent to those with limited intellectual capacity. pfffft
Facts like what?
How about these facts:
Climbing without a rope near the ground is described with the word "bouldering", regardless of how many moves there are. (This is an empirical claim about the English language, and I dare you to disagree with it on a public forum.)
V-grades have been applied to problems even longer than Wheel of Life since their introduction in Hueco Tanks. (The 135' V8 at the Gymnasium.)
The YDS was also applied to boulder problems for many years before that.
The original definition of the V-scale explicitly includes and mentions endurance.
The facts are on my side. The history is on my side. And moreover, making coherent sense is on my side. Maybe one day you'll realize it.... or maybe you just can't teach an old dog new tricks.
|
|
|
|
|
chainsaw
Mar 13, 2007, 4:57 PM
Post #79 of 202
(4407 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2007
Posts: 37
|
curt wrote: chainsaw wrote: ...Holloway was extremely tall and his problems that have held their difficulty are just really long reaches. They are certainly hard, but are very specialized... It's good to see you don't let facts interfere with your erroneous assumptions. You should fit right in around here. The fact is that only one of Holloway's three unrepeated problems (Slapshot) involves a long reach. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
karma
Mar 13, 2007, 5:08 PM
Post #80 of 202
(4403 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2005
Posts: 95
|
I do love all the rampant sarcasm.
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Mar 13, 2007, 11:58 PM
Post #81 of 202
(4383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
karma wrote: [IMG]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y207/GSampson/Teasing/Thread-Crap-Graph.jpg[/IMG] I do love all the rampant sarcasm.
Lol, best post on this entire thread.
|
|
|
|
|
hyongx
Mar 14, 2007, 1:27 AM
Post #82 of 202
(4371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2004
Posts: 209
|
when i finally send that sick boulder problem i've been working on in the gym for the past week,
I think that I am the best boulderer in the world,
and thats all that matters.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 14, 2007, 1:27 AM
Post #83 of 202
(4371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
chainsaw wrote: curt wrote: chainsaw wrote: ...Holloway was extremely tall and his problems that have held their difficulty are just really long reaches. They are certainly hard, but are very specialized... It's good to see you don't let facts interfere with your erroneous assumptions. You should fit right in around here. The fact is that only one of Holloway's three unrepeated problems (Slapshot) involves a long reach. Curt What are the other two unrepeated problems Curt? Hollows Way? That's not a reach problem? Anyway, your missing the point as usual. The thread is titled "best boulderer ever."
Hollow's Way may very well be a reach problem. That's totally irrelevant though--because Hollow's Way isn't a boulder problem that Jim Holloway established. Hollow's Way was first done by Bob Candelaria. By the way, if you're so fucking smart, why are you asking me what the other two problems are?
chainsaw wrote: While its good to see you don't let facts interfere with your pinings for yesteryear, the fact is Holloway did a few obscure hard problems in his local area, thats it. That does not even put him in the running as the best boulderer ever...
Those problems are still unrepeated, genius. In fact, even today Holloway probably has more unrepeated boulder problems than any other boulderer in history. Just because you are ignorant of Holloway's problems does not make them "obscure." Get a fucking clue.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 14, 2007, 1:45 AM
Post #84 of 202
(4368 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
fracture wrote: How about these facts: Climbing without a rope near the ground is described with the word "bouldering", regardless of how many moves there are. (This is an empirical claim about the English language, and I dare you to disagree with it on a public forum.)
Most people don't understand the factual meaning of the word redundant either. I suppose you can find some consolation in the fact that many other people also misuse the term bouldering on a regular basis.
fracture wrote: V-grades have been applied to problems even longer than Wheel of Life since their introduction in Hueco Tanks. (The 135' V8 at the Gymnasium.)
We have been over this ground before. Sherman, himself, admits that applying a "V" rating to very long sequences of moves (like Burn, Baby, Burn) was a mistake on his part.
fracture wrote: The YDS was also applied to boulder problems for many years before that.
Before bouldering became a more or less seperate activity, that was perhaps the case in some areas--because that is all people were familiar with. If the YDS would have been suitable for rating boulder problems (i.e. short sequences of very hard moves) there would have been no need for any of the bouldering ratings scales to have emerged. But, I suspect you know that.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Mar 14, 2007, 3:55 AM
Post #85 of 202
(4353 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
curt wrote: fracture wrote: How about these facts: Climbing without a rope near the ground is described with the word "bouldering", regardless of how many moves there are. (This is an empirical claim about the English language, and I dare you to disagree with it on a public forum.)Most people don't understand the factual meaning of the word redundant either.
Assuming you're not talking about people who don't even speak English, that's simply an impossible claim. A word always means what most native speakers think it means. Period.
Please, go buy a book on linguistics, Curt, before you further embarrass yourself by spewing any more unscientific bullshit.
In reply to: I suppose you can find some consolation in the fact that many other people also misuse the term bouldering on a regular basis.
You simply have no clue what you are talking about. Linguistics is an empirical science, Curt. And claims about the meaning of the word "bouldering" are linguistic claims. You can't just make shit up, okay?
And when you admit that "many other people" use the term in the way I am describing, you are basically admitting that I am correct. Either "bouldering" doesn't mean what you are claiming it means, or there are multiple (possibly contradictory) senses of the word in active use (which is the norm for climbing terminology).
In reply to: fracture wrote: V-grades have been applied to problems even longer than Wheel of Life since their introduction in Hueco Tanks. (The 135' V8 at the Gymnasium.)We have been over this ground before. Sherman, himself, admits that applying a "V" rating to very long sequences of moves (like Burn, Baby, Burn) was a mistake on his part.
Your typical response on this front: an irrelevant Appeal to Authority (though at least this time you left out the insults).
What Sherman thinks is as irrelevant as what you think: whether the V-grade system is applied to long problems is an empirical question. And Burn, Baby, Burn offers an existence-proof that is (along with several other problems I can name, including a number of local ones). You can continue to deny it, but you're arguing against reality, not against me.
Now, you could consider admitting that what I said is simply a fact---that the V-scale is and has been successfully used on long problems---and then arguing that it shouldn't be the case. But then, we'd still be waiting for a coherent argument on that front. (And I've been discussing this with you ever since Wheel of Life was put up without ever seeing you produce a single one!)
You can start by telling us in what way the V-scale and the YDS are fundamentally different. Because, if they are (and I think it is painfully apparent that they are not), then it is obviously not due to the length of climbing that they have been applied to. (cf. the facts I've enumerated.)
In reply to: fracture wrote: The YDS was also applied to boulder problems for many years before that.Before bouldering became a more or less seperate activity, that was perhaps the case in some areas--because that is all people were familiar with. If the YDS would have been suitable for rating boulder problems (i.e. short sequences of very hard moves) there would have been no need for any of the bouldering ratings scales to have emerged. But, I suspect you know that.
But, the YDS is suitable for rating boulder problems, as evidenced by the fact that it was once successfully used for it! Not to mention the thousands of one-move-wonder sport routes found at crags across the country (i.e. "short sequences of very hard moves").
The V-scale was an unnecessary invention (although it lacks some of the historical baggage and could therefore arguably be considered more elegant). But it certainly doesn't really hurt anything; there's already a plethora of rating systems of this same type out there (YDS, Hueco, French, Font, Aussie, UIAA, etc.). Any cumulative (aka, not "hardest move"), difficulty-only (aka, danger is irrelevant) grading system is the same: the only difference is where each "notch" in the scale is located, and how they are spelled.
And please try to make some sort of (non-fallacious) argument in your next post. I'd really find it much more entertaining than this crap, which is just way too easy.
(This post was edited by fracture on Mar 14, 2007, 4:29 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 14, 2007, 6:07 AM
Post #86 of 202
(4333 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
fracture wrote: ...Your typical response on this front: an irrelevant Appeal to Authority (though at least this time you left out the insults). What Sherman thinks is as irrelevant as what you think: whether the V-grade system is applied to long problems is an empirical question. And Burn, Baby, Burn offers an existence-proof that is (along with several other problems I can name, including a number of local ones). You can continue to deny it, but you're arguing against reality, not against me...
That's about the best argument you have and it is still idiotic. The inventor of modern bouldering (Gill) says that boulder problems are short, hard problems. You can call The Rostrum in Yosemite a boulder problem for all I care and although it may be to Peter Croft, you'd still be talking out of your ass. Also, it is not "an emprircal question" of whether or not "V" grades have been used to rate very long boulder problems--if that has been done incorrectly, as the very inventor of the "V" system himself claims.
However, rather than argue my point any farther, I'll just let you believe that you know better about bouldering than Gill, Sherman, myself or anyone else. Enjoy your little fantasy world.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Mar 14, 2007, 9:22 AM
Post #87 of 202
(4321 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
curt wrote: fracture wrote: ...Your typical response on this front: an irrelevant Appeal to Authority (though at least this time you left out the insults). What Sherman thinks is as irrelevant as what you think: whether the V-grade system is applied to long problems is an empirical question. And Burn, Baby, Burn offers an existence-proof that is (along with several other problems I can name, including a number of local ones). You can continue to deny it, but you're arguing against reality, not against me... That's about the best argument you have and it is still idiotic. The inventor of modern bouldering (Gill) says that boulder problems are short, hard problems. You can call The Rostrum in Yosemite a boulder problem for all I care and although it may be to Peter Croft, you'd still be talking out of your ass. Also, it is not "an emprircal question" of whether or not "V" grades have been used to rate very long boulder problems--if that has been done incorrectly, as the very inventor of the "V" system himself claims. However, rather than argue my point any farther, I'll just let you believe that you know better about bouldering than Gill, Sherman, myself or anyone else. Enjoy your little fantasy world.
Argue your "point" further? What point? You have yet to make a point!
Curt: if we are debating whether the items I enumerated are facts, then it is completely irrelevant what any authority you can name thinks. Each of those are empirical claims that are either true or false, regardless of whether anyone wants them to be true or false.
On the other hand, if you want to claim that the V-scale shouldn't be applied to long boulder problems (and admit that the items I enumerated are facts), then the burden is on you to provide a good argument for that change. (And you have yet to do so, in any of these threads in the past several years.) Again: an Appeal to Authority is not a good argument.
And, in case you can't quite hear what you sound like when you read your own posts, here's your post condensed to a more digestible Cliff Notes form, for your edification (and other's amusement):
Your position is idiotic.
Sherman and Gill agree with me, therefore I'm right.
You live in a fantasy world.
So look: If you want to hold your thinking on climbing to that sort of standard, that's your prerogative. But don't expect to convince those of us who require reasons for our opinions or beliefs.
(This post was edited by fracture on Mar 14, 2007, 9:35 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
chainsaw
Mar 14, 2007, 3:46 PM
Post #88 of 202
(4300 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2007
Posts: 37
|
In reply to: curt wrote: chainsaw wrote: curt wrote: chainsaw wrote: ...Holloway was extremely tall and his problems that have held their difficulty are just really long reaches. They are certainly hard, but are very specialized... It's good to see you don't let facts interfere with your erroneous assumptions. You should fit right in around here. The fact is that only one of Holloway's three unrepeated problems (Slapshot) involves a long reach. Curt What are the other two unrepeated problems Curt? Hollows Way? That's not a reach problem? Anyway, your missing the point as usual. The thread is titled "best boulderer ever." may very well be a reach problem. That's totally irrelevant though--because Hollow's Way isn't a boulder problem that Jim Holloway established. Hollow's Way was first done by Bob Candelaria. By the way, if you're so fucking smart, why are you asking me what the other two problems are? Uh, because I don't know, but I guess that makes me an idiot. You don't seem to be giving any answers though, so what does that make you? I guess your right curt, your arguments just seem so much stronger when you call people dumb. chainsaw wrote: While its good to see you don't let facts interfere with your pinings for yesteryear, the fact is Holloway did a few obscure hard problems in his local area, thats it. That does not even put him in the running as the best boulderer ever... Those problems are still unrepeated, genius. In fact, even today Holloway probably has more unrepeated boulder problems than any other boulderer in history. Just because you are ignorant of Holloway's problems does not make them "obscure." Get a fucking clue.Curt Your claim that he has more "unrepeated problems than anyone in history" is based on what exactly? Almost all of his problems are in or around Boulder, which I am sure you think is the center of the universe, but hey, guess what, there is a big wide world out there Curt! And on the world scale, some random off the map areas around Boulder with a couple of unrepeated Holloway problems makes those problems "obscure." Are they at destination areas like Hueco, Bishop, Font, the Grit? no. Which means the real question is, how many of the top boulderers in the world have actually traveled to these areas and tried to repeat these problems? Uh, likely none? Exactly. Your the one who needs to pull his head out of his ass and get a clue Curt. Remember, this thread is about the "Best Boulderer Ever". I suspect you have never really climbed much outside of your little world and thus have no perspective on which to base your claims. Try and lose the angry old man thing and get out more. p.s. your ignorance is proven by the statement that "Gill" is the inventor of modern bouldering. Typical myopic colorado bullshit. Uh, the first bouldering guidebook for Fontainbleau came out in like 1942? Sorry to burst your little bubble buddy.
(This post was edited by chainsaw on Mar 14, 2007, 3:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
Mar 14, 2007, 4:22 PM
Post #89 of 202
(4289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
Curt boulderers,
so he must be the best boulderer.
|
|
|
|
|
kr0g3r
Mar 14, 2007, 7:31 PM
Post #90 of 202
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Posts: 142
|
chainsaw wrote: p.s. your ignorance is proven by the statement that "Gill" is the inventor of modern bouldering. Typical myopic colorado bullshit. Uh, the first bouldering guidebook for Fontainbleau came out in like 1942? Sorry to burst your little bubble buddy.
stupid french are too busy bouldering to free them selves from the nazi's. sad.
|
|
|
|
|
chainsaw
Mar 14, 2007, 7:44 PM
Post #91 of 202
(4256 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2007
Posts: 37
|
kr0g3r wrote: chainsaw wrote: p.s. your ignorance is proven by the statement that "Gill" is the inventor of modern bouldering. Typical myopic colorado bullshit. Uh, the first bouldering guidebook for Fontainbleau came out in like 1942? Sorry to burst your little bubble buddy. stupid french are too busy bouldering to free them selves from the nazi's. sad.
I know, that's some pretty funny shit. They were just like, "fuck it, let's go bouldering." I heard Hitler was vying for the FA of Karma but he was too busy taking over the world and stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 15, 2007, 2:00 AM
Post #92 of 202
(4240 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
chainsaw wrote: Your claim that he has more "unrepeated problems than anyone in history" is based on what exactly? Almost all of his problems are in or around Boulder, which I am sure you think is the center of the universe, but hey, guess what, there is a big wide world out there Curt! And on the world scale, some random off the map areas around Boulder with a couple of unrepeated Holloway problems makes those problems "obscure." Are they at destination areas like Hueco, Bishop, Font, the Grit? no. Which means the real question is, how many of the top boulderers in the world have actually traveled to these areas and tried to repeat these problems? Uh, likely none? Exactly.
Just for starters, Ben Moon and Jerry Mofatt (in their prime) both tried and failed to repeat at least a couple of Holloway's test-piece problems--plus a ton of other talented boulderers. According to you, though, they must be "no one."
chainsaw wrote: I suspect you have never really climbed much outside of your little world and thus have no perspective on which to base your claims. Try and lose the angry old man thing and get out more.
You suspect wrong. And, if you think you can keep up with me bouldering, I'll be happy to prove you wrong twice.
chainsaw wrote: p.s. your ignorance is proven by the statement that "Gill" is the inventor of modern bouldering. Typical myopic colorado bullshit. Uh, the first bouldering guidebook for Fontainbleau came out in like 1942? Sorry to burst your little bubble buddy.
Your ignorance is exceeded only by your completely undeserved arrogance. You know little to nothing about the origins of bouldering. Modern bouldering has a specific meaning beyond merely scrambling around on boulders up to a 5.10 or so level. Why I bother trying to educate total fucktards like you is beyond me. However, read this and perhaps you'll learn something. I doubt it though, you don't seem so inclined.
http://www128.pair.com/...ring_History1.0.html
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 15, 2007, 2:22 AM
Post #93 of 202
(4233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
fracture wrote: So look: If you want to hold your thinking on climbing to that sort of standard, that's your prerogative. But don't expect to convince those of us who require reasons for our opinions or beliefs.
I see. So, if some people incorrectly applied the "V" scale to very long boulder problems in the past, that somehow proves your point? Is Pluto still a planet?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Mar 15, 2007, 6:10 AM
Post #94 of 202
(4220 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
curt wrote: fracture wrote: So look: If you want to hold your thinking on climbing to that sort of standard, that's your prerogative. But don't expect to convince those of us who require reasons for our opinions or beliefs. I see. So, if some people incorrectly applied the "V" scale to very long boulder problems in the past, that somehow proves your point?
"Incorrectly?" Quit assuming your conclusion, Curt.
(And I like how you just inadvertently referred to these long problems as "boulder problems". Classic.)
(This post was edited by fracture on Mar 15, 2007, 7:39 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
dhaulagiri
Mar 15, 2007, 12:34 PM
Post #95 of 202
(4202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2003
Posts: 236
|
you guys really need to find something else to do with your free time...
|
|
|
|
|
kr0g3r
Mar 15, 2007, 2:31 PM
Post #96 of 202
(4197 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Posts: 142
|
excellent link curt. probably the only good to come out of this arguement.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Mar 15, 2007, 3:29 PM
Post #97 of 202
(4183 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
fracture wrote: curt wrote: fracture wrote: So look: If you want to hold your thinking on climbing to that sort of standard, that's your prerogative. But don't expect to convince those of us who require reasons for our opinions or beliefs. I see. So, if some people incorrectly applied the "V" scale to very long boulder problems in the past, that somehow proves your point? "Incorrectly?" Quit assuming your conclusion, Curt. (And I like how you just inadvertently referred to these long problems as "boulder problems". Classic.)
Fracture, Curt, it is incredibly simple. Some routes/problems base their difficulty rating on endurance, others on the single hardest move. DUH. When Curt uses the term "modern bouldering," he is talking about Gill's original intent in doing the SINGLE HARDEST MOVES on rock.
You both know that.
Both the YDS and V-scale were originally intended to grade the SINGLE HARDEST MOVE. Both have since been used to grade endurance. It is apples and oranges.
I suspect that Fracture's main beef in this argument is based upon the fact that he and most other Texas spurt climbers spend their time ruthlessly wiring two move sequences at Reimers so that they can say they climb 5.13, but then get shut down on the same rating at Rifle, the Red, and other endurance crags.
pwned.
|
|
|
|
|
chainsaw
Mar 15, 2007, 3:47 PM
Post #98 of 202
(4177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2007
Posts: 37
|
curt wrote: Just for starters, Ben Moon and Jerry Mofatt (in their prime) both tried and failed to repeat at least a couple of Holloway's test-piece problems--plus a ton of other talented boulderers. According to you, though, they must be "no one."
OK, so Ben and Jerry tried and failed on Holloway's problems (what, like in the 80's?). But how long did they try them? Could they have been having a bad day? Were the conditions good? Were they the reachy ones? This point still doesn't refute the fact that Hollaway's unrepeated problems are few, are not in a destination area and therefore are rarely tried by the world's best boulderers today, and it still does not prove that Holloway was the "Best boulderer ever." You still have yet to name all of these supposed unrepeated problems that you are masterbating over. Focus, Curt!
curt wrote: You suspect wrong. And, if you think you can keep up with me bouldering, I'll be happy to prove you wrong twice.
That's laughable Curt. I don't "think" I could "keep up with you", I "know" I could "school" you. Not to mention you haven't proven me wrong once.
curt wrote: Your ignorance is exceeded only by your completely undeserved arrogance. You know little to nothing about the origins of bouldering. Modern bouldering has a specific meaning beyond merely scrambling around on boulders up to a 5.10 or so level. Why I bother trying to educate total fucktards like you is beyond me. However, read this and perhaps you'll learn something. I doubt it though, you don't seem so inclined.
Good link, and thanks for adding it to prove my point. You don't read so well do ya Curt. In case you haven't yet climbed the grade, V5 is not "5.10 level scrambling." Furthermore, just because Gill introduced chalk (the bleausards were already using rosin) and made more dynamic moves than the euros doesn't mean he invented "modern bouldering." I think its pretty funny that you are using Gill's website to prove that Gill invented modern bouldering. That's like going to George Bush's website to prove he was the best president that ever lived. IF you knew anything about bouldering history, you would realize that the bleausards and the english were using rosin, making dynamic moves, using pads, and were bouldering for the act itself, not simply for training in the mountains. Just what is your definition of "modern" bouldering? Oh, I'm sure it is "when bouldering came to colorado." While I do believe Gill likely brought modern bouldering to America, to say he "invented" it is a stretch I doubt he is even willing to take. Don't worry though Curt, if you keep calling me names like "idiot" and "fucktard" eventually you will be right.
The funniest thing is that you are saying I have "undeserved arrogance." Have you read any of your own posts? You seem to think you are the authority on this subject and that I couldn't keep up with you bouldering. How did you "deserve" this arrogance?
(This post was edited by chainsaw on Mar 15, 2007, 3:50 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Mar 15, 2007, 6:36 PM
Post #99 of 202
(4151 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
camhead wrote: fracture wrote: curt wrote: fracture wrote: So look: If you want to hold your thinking on climbing to that sort of standard, that's your prerogative. But don't expect to convince those of us who require reasons for our opinions or beliefs. I see. So, if some people incorrectly applied the "V" scale to very long boulder problems in the past, that somehow proves your point? "Incorrectly?" Quit assuming your conclusion, Curt. (And I like how you just inadvertently referred to these long problems as "boulder problems". Classic.) Fracture, Curt, it is incredibly simple. Some routes/problems base their difficulty rating on endurance, others on the single hardest move. DUH.
If when you say "some routes/problems", you mean "some rating systems", then I agree. However, neither the modern YDS nor the Hueco scale are hardest-move rating systems.
In reply to: When Curt uses the term "modern bouldering," he is talking about Gill's original intent in doing the SINGLE HARDEST MOVES on rock.
That may or may not have been Gill's original intent, but that is completely irrelevant to the question we are debating. And furthermore, I doubt it. Gill has said things in the past which seem like they wouldn't really jive with a perspective that discounted endurance or long climbs. For example:
"Historically, before the introduction of crash pads in the early 1990s, bouldering was done both with and without top-ropes."
"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."
In reply to: Both the YDS and V-scale were originally intended to grade the SINGLE HARDEST MOVE. Both have since been used to grade endurance. It is apples and oranges.
Wrong. The YDS was, yes, and has since changed. But the Hueco scale was explicitly designed with endurance in mind. Again, one of the earliest problems rated using it is 135' long, and the original definition says "... only the physical difficulty counts --- that is, the technicality of the moves combined with the demands on one's power and endurance." (Emphasis added.)
You're simply factually wrong, cam. If you want to debate whether it should apply to endurance, that's one thing. But it is an unambiguous fact that does and always has.
In reply to: I suspect that Fracture's main beef in this argument is based upon the fact that he and most other Texas spurt climbers spend their time ruthlessly wiring two move sequences at Reimers so that they can say they climb 5.13, but then get shut down on the same rating at Rifle, the Red, and other endurance crags.
Hah, almost. You're forgetting Flat Creek. (Ever been there?)
But it is true that many of the sport climbs here have hard sections that aren't much longer than most "long" boulder problems, such as many problems at Hueco Tanks. But more interestingly, this is less unusual than some people pretend. Ever been to Sitting Bull Falls, for example? You can climb 90' 12c's and 12d's there without ever having to do more than a 15-move sequence before the next no hands rest! I find this is common all over the place. True endurance routes seem a lot rarer than climbs which stress power-endurance (which is what Austin sport climbers specialize in, which probably is why we tend to crush on road trips, contrary to your ribbing  ).
(This post was edited by fracture on Mar 15, 2007, 6:37 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 16, 2007, 1:50 AM
Post #100 of 202
(4117 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
chainsaw wrote: OK, so Ben and Jerry tried and failed on Holloway's problems (what, like in the 80's?). But how long did they try them? Could they have been having a bad day? Were the conditions good? Were they the reachy ones? This point still doesn't refute the fact that Hollaway's unrepeated problems are few, are not in a destination area and therefore are rarely tried by the world's best boulderers today, and it still does not prove that Holloway was the "Best boulderer ever." You still have yet to name all of these supposed unrepeated problems that you are masterbating over. Focus, Curt!
The three unrepeated problems of Holloway's are Meathook, AHR, and Slapshot. It could be that not all the world's best boulderers have tried these problems but contrary to your claim, many have--and the problems are still unrepeated after 30 years. How long do most (or any) new boulder problems go unrepeated these days?
chainsaw wrote: That's laughable Curt. I don't "think" I could "keep up with you", I "know" I could "school" you.
I doubt it, Cupcake. I'm willing to bet a bunch of cash that you're full of shit. How about it?
chainsaw wrote: In case you haven't yet climbed the grade, V5 is not "5.10 level scrambling." Furthermore, just because Gill introduced chalk (the bleausards were already using rosin) and made more dynamic moves than the euros doesn't mean he invented "modern bouldering."
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
(This post was edited by curt on Mar 16, 2007, 2:11 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
