|
|
|
|
iamthewallress
Jan 30, 2004, 8:08 PM
Post #1 of 4
(2513 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 2463
|
The Red Point thread got me thinking about this...To some degree when I am climbing, in particular when I am "trad" climbing, I impose a set of rules on myself for playing the game.
For example, the choice to project a redpoint or not is one style consideration. Some others could include
...the choice to not drill, to do so only from stances, or to rap bolt an FA.
...the choice to lower to the ground if you fall vs. stick clip from bolt to bolt to check out the moves
...the choice to stick to bolted routes or boulders to maximize the movement experience while minimizing the risk vs. only climbing routes that you can manage with a minimal amount of gear so as to "give the rock a chance" to ply you with its mental challenges as well as its physical ones and offer more destination exploration possibilities.
I'd like to know what do you think about valuing a set of ethical or style standards standards? Do you think it's limiting? Is it OK to choose to be limited if we can still grow and learn within that space if we feel that we can offer the most "love force" by adhering to certain standards?
My question is NOT which style you think is best. (I don't mean to start a sport is better than trad...no it's not, yes it is...kind of argument.).
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
Jan 30, 2004, 8:53 PM
Post #2 of 4
(2513 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
I think about it this way:
If we have no rules, then there is less opportunity for creativity, no chance to expand within a set of limits. A simple example of an excersice would be to climb a slab with no hands. Abiding by this rule means you must be creative in your solutions to movement. Do it successfully, and you've expanded your skills, pushed your limits out.
If you decide you only want to use removable gear, then you must be creative in finding placements where others depend on pins or bolts. And so on. So rules of style or ethics are required to play this game.
Personally, I am intoxicated by the beauty of movement. I want to climb smoothly over the most difficult rocks I can. If I considered pulling on quickdraws acceptable style, I wouldn't need to solve the crux moves on my project.
UB
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 2, 2004, 7:04 PM
Post #3 of 4
(2513 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: The Red Point thread got me thinking about this...To some degree when I am climbing, in particular when I am "trad" climbing, I impose a set of rules on myself for playing the game.
So do I. For instance, I wouldn't stick clip the bolt on a trad climb at Josh, even if they made a stick clip long enough to do so.
In reply to: I'd like to know what do you think about valuing a set of ethical or style standards standards? Do you think it's limiting? Is it OK to choose to be limited if we can still grow and learn within that space if we feel that we can offer the most "love force" by adhering to certain standards?
It can certainly be limiting. If you only trad climb, you miss the learning opportunities of sport climbing. If you always lower off after a fall, you miss the learning opportunity of working the move you couldn't do.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Feb 3, 2004, 2:44 AM
Post #4 of 4
(2513 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
I'd like to say I don't play such games, but Sunday I was determined not to hang or fall on an ffa LOL, even though I had to step into the sequence and back down 6 times before I got it right. I played the "find a rest, any rest without hanging or gear grabbing" game.
I also stuck to the "place as much pro as you can get under the crux" game, and this was not very easy for several reasons. IT took effort to hold a stance to get in each piece and the gear was very small and complicated--Several things were rejected LOL. It wound up being two aid nuts in tensioned opposition and a number 1 ballnut.
Once I had the gear that would hold a fall, I had to deal with the third day of climbing fatigue as well as the pump from placing the gear in an awkard stance, and then dealing with 6 wrong sequences to recover from . I was definately working to find rests any way I could. When I finally got the crux done, I was much happier than if I had either bailed grabbed or hung or even fallen off in a half hearted attempt.
I think the only way I got thrugh it was by truly focusing first on finding rests, and then once I had the right sequence, focusing totally on moving through the crox, jsut as if it had been a boulder problem.
About that game of putting in less than optimal pro to let the rock have a chance, I am against that. Beter safe than sorry works for me, and I climb over enough thin and or runout gear that I see no need to make artificial danger.
I think some rules are too limiting. For example, my slogan in 2003 was "Bolt free in 2003", and so I didn't do any sport climbing, I could have benefitted from a little sport climbing (OHHH I hate the sound oif that!)
Other rules are limiting but absolutely needed, such as, "always check your tie in knot"
Rules like, "DOn't hang or say take" are fine as long as you don't make yourself miserable or put yourself in danger by blimdly following rules.
I guess we each have to decide what our rules and limits will be, and evaluate their efficacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
