Keeping Ourselves Honest

[smilingrock]

Hi everyone. I've got an ethical question for us all to ponder. Where does a problem start? I'd say that once you're off the ground anything goes. Dyno, static, skip the intermediate or use it, use the higher foot or the lower one, and so on, but before you even pull on should you be where everyone else who has tried the problem was, or does it only matter if you end up in the same place as the ones who have sent in the past?

I've been thinking about this because I showed a friend a sit start problem that starts left hand gaston in a crack, right hand side pull on the arret. He showed it to a friend who tried it and said "That's really hard dude. It'd be easier if we started with both hands in the crack. Hey nice send dude!" Did they send the problem, or create a different (and crappier) problem? If you can start a problem on whatever hands you want, what are we doing sit starting anything? I can reach a lot higher when I'm standing, and then skip all kinds of moves I can't do.

PS: Speaking of sit starts, I have another question. Do rope climbers not do sit starts because they're lazy or unimaginative?

[stoneseeker]

Your mixing up 2 scenarios, methinks!

Skipping moves is plain obvious, your missing out on the climb... (Read: Mandala starts low, if you gotta stack pads, your skipping moves.) But it sounds like in your example your friend used the same start hold as you did, only matched it instead of using the arete (which is never used again after the start, so the arete should be its own climb), so dont confuse the two arguments.
If someone starts a sit down standing, they are not doing the climb.
If someone starts two moves PAST the start hold, they are not doing the climb.
If someone matches the start hold, instead of starting one hand on that hold, and one hand on a higher crystal, THATS just preference (and common sense.)

Heres a good example: "Joe Boxer" is traditionally started with a double heel hook. Something I find terribly flexible and crazy. So, like many others in the community, I heel hook left, and toe smear under the heel instead. Makes more sense to me, and your still starting with your hands on the same start holds, and your butt on the ground.

Another example: "Exciter" starts with left hand crimping and right hand on the arete pinching, right? Theres two or more crimps on the face to grab with your left, it doesnt matter which one you use, not to mention if someone actually found it easier to start matched on the arete where you rright hand is, why not?? I also watched three different climbers today all start "Tough Sailors" "legally" in completely different ways. 1 with an undercling and sidepull, another with hands crossed, another with both hands on sidepull. All worked, all were fine.

Some climbs are contrived and have specific intention to be weird or inobvious though. Also, some dyno's are contrived cause there are easier ways of solving them....

like "Blacksmith" as a dyno is V9, but you can actually mantle the crack and make it V5. So if you do it the easiest way, you are not doing it the way it is graded and intended by Zig.

haha SO in conclusion.
your silly homemade problem at Prospect was contrived to state where your right hand must start, and I used the same start hold you did with your left, buddy!!! I just found better beta and matched instead of the one-time use of the arete, which made no sense for the movement of the climb....

But thats ok Mike, we all make dumb climbs. Apparently everyone hates "Fruit of the Loom" in Gibralter. I still get dirty looks for that one.

[betaburgler]

BAM!!! Avoid the message boards for ever then start out with posts about "Ethics"! Mike you've got ballz!!

[stoneseeker]

I know.... what have I done?? I've persuaded a monster into the boards!

[smilingrock]

Sounds shaky to me Luke. Here's a quote from your extensive defence of your dodgy climbing style.

"Heres a good example: "Joe Boxer" is traditionally started with a double heel hook. Something I find terribly flexible and crazy. So, like many others in the community, I heel hook left, and toe smear under the heel instead. Makes more sense to me, and your still starting with your hands on the same start holds, and your butt on the ground."

The "your still starting with your hands on the same start holds" is exactly my point, and exactly what you didn't do when you corrupted my pure line with your shenanigans. Shameful, Mr. Buxton, shameful.

And as for Exciter, whichever crimp you choose, you're still CRIMPING, so the problem remains unchanged.

Bouldering is like life. We all start in the same place, chart our own path, and then end up in the same place. It's the journey, not the destination. A boulder in the hand is worth more than two at the bottom of the ocean. Blah, Blah, Blah. If we started at different places we wouldn't know how to judge each other, and decide who we want to climb with.

My case is resting.

Mike

[jeremy benjamin]

The rules for climbing in Canada are available here: http://www.competitionclimbingcanada.co ... ew&item=10

I have reproduced sections of the 2011 Canadian Climbing Rules that are relevant to start holds below. Please read all of the rules before climbing outside in Nova Scotia. After successfully completing a boulder problem you are permitted to tick the box that is found to the left of the name of the boulder problem in the Official Guide Book to Bouldering in Nova Scotia. To do so two observers must initial next to your tick mark for the tick mark to be official. Please do not use any un-official or 'underground' guidebooks that may exist for bouldering in Nova Scotia. Please abstain from climbing problems not described in the Official Guide Book to Bouldering in Nova Scotia, for more information on undescribed boulders see the posts about when a boulder becomes a problem found on this message board.

I will reserve my own opinion of the actions at issue here, except to say Luke, you clearly cheated buddy.

5.1.8 Each boulder shall have a pre-designated starting position which shall consist of at least fixed positions for the two hands, and may include fixed and marked positions for either one or both feet. The starting position shall be clearly marked, and the marking shall be the same for all boulders. The colour used shall be different from those used to mark the bonus holds, and demarcations in accordance with Article 3.2.2. At the discretion of the Chief Routesetter the pre-designated starting holds may be labelled left and right.

5.2.3 Each attempt of a competitor shall start from the starting position as defined in Article 5.1.8 before climbing on.

5.4.3 The attempt of a competitor shall be terminated if:

a) the competitor does not reach the starting position described in Article 5.1.8;
b) the competitor uses any part of the wall, holds or features other than as permitted by Article 3.2.1 or which have been demarcated against use for climbing in accordance with 3.2.2;
c) the competitor touches the ground with any part of the body; DAB!
d) in the qualification and semifinal round (and final round of Classic Format) the attempt has not been completed before the end of the rotation period;
e) the competitor doesn’t start as indicated by the boulder judge.

An attempt will also be counted for:

f) touches, with hands or feet, or chalking holds other than the starting holds (see Article 5.3.3;
g) adding tick marks (see Article 5.3.3)

[*Chris*]

The rules for climbing in Canada are available here: ...

That post gets 5 stars. I think your discussion is over.

[patzer]

Heh. There was some discussion about this recently on b3bouldering (Jamie Emerson's blog - a known sticker for these sorts of things), for pretty much the exact same situation you gave. I would argue:

- it's only the hands that give the start, the feet don't matter: I don't understand why they make you use both feet in a comp
- it's the height/location of the start holds that matters, not the kind of hold, if there happens to be other options in the same area, it is fine to choose one you prefer: I can't think of a local climb currently, but I'm sure there is one with an option for a sloper or crimp for one hand on the start
- starting matched on one hold to make it easier when there is clear separate starting holds is just not in the spirit of the contrived nature of bouldering
- there will be grey areas, eg. Tough Sailors has basically three obvious start holds as I recall, pick any two?

And rope climbers don't like sit starts because they're lazy and they don't like getting dirty.

[stoneseeker]

haha ok, that was awesome.
But Mike, sorry buddy you can't start a debate and then choose to "close" it. Thats cowardly. the shame.
I admit, I started your problem how I thought it should start for the natural line. I chose not to start with my right hand on the arete, instead I started matched on where you had your left. (and I think Ryan agreed it didnt make sense to use the arete for the right hand at the start, except that it made it harder.) You quoted me about Joe Boxer, but I went on to talk about hands (not just feet) later on with the Tough Sailors example, why didnt you comment on that example? If I am wrong in matching that hold, is it wrong to match the sidepull on Tough Sailors, instead of using the undercling or other crimp??

I have a feeling you would be ok with that, or uncertain of the "real" way to start, so I think your still contradicitng yourself.

I think "Tough Sailors" is the most relevant example. People are using DIFFERENT HOLDS to start. Also, in DIFFERENT WAYS. If I undercling a hold, and someone else crimps next to it, and yet another sidepulls left of it, with the opposite hand... WHOS RIGHT?!? According to your logic, only one way is legit. Thats silly to me. Each start method has a different style like the rest of the climb. All the holds used at the start can be reached while sitting, all the holds have there own cryptic element that can help you solve the puzzle.

I can understand very hard defined rules to follow in a competition setting as Jeremy humorously described, still, I find it hard to believe that we should take a boulder problem and say because another person starts crossed on the holds instead of underclinging, that one of them is climbing "dodgy". Thats asserting more control over a climbing style than is healthy in such an individual recreation.

So if you answer anything before you close the argument, I think you gotta address the tough sailors example first, and describe how you are not in contradiction.

[stoneseeker]

- it's only the hands that give the start, the feet don't matter: I don't understand why they make you use both feet in a comp
- it's the height/location of the start holds that matters, not the kind of hold, if there happens to be other options in the same area, it is fine to choose one you prefer: I can't think of a local climb currently, but I'm sure there is one with an option for a sloper or crimp for one hand on the start
- starting matched on one hold to make it easier when there is clear separate starting holds is just not in the spirit of the contrived nature of bouldering
- there will be grey areas, eg. Tough Sailors has basically three obvious start holds as I recall, pick any two?

I respect these points, and I like how you actually addressed what I'm talking about.
But I feel like the "grey" area is the contradiction.
I personally dont feel a good line is "contrived". It follows a natural weakness in the rock, and it should be difficult if not impossible to cheat, if this is true. I guess there will always be "grey" areas, and maybe thats what sorta annoys me.
Why should Tough Sailors be any different rules than another climb??

The point I disagree with the most in this case (when you boil it all down) :
"- starting matched on one hold to make it easier when there is clear separate starting holds is just not in the spirit of the contrived nature of bouldering"
Then I feel the climb is too contrived, even for bouldering. (like Mike's) It shouldnt be easier to start matched on one of the start holds, why would anyone feel it neccesary to make a harder less natural start hold for the other hand? The difficulty of the line shouldnt ride on whether or not you start matched or hands apart.

[fuchsl]

I see in the Halifax Bouldering guide book, for example

"Twin sisters of pain V8 SDS
Starting beside the flat hold,LH on lip/RH on crimp 1 foot off the ground,
swing right to sloping seam and climb right to the ledge and TO."

above pretty much describes hows to start and finish? it's pretty detailed on how to climb it.

"Tough Sailors V7 SDS
From in cut crimps, fire right and finish up arete"

To me it leaves quite a bit to the imagination?
I often wondered how am I "supposed" to climb the specific problem when it's not fully outlined in "the book"

[patzer]

I feel in Tough Sailors because there are three holds *in the same location* you can use them as you see fit. You aren't moving a hand the other side of an arrete! Only a few inches different on a face.

Bouldering is contrived, period. I also find lines where you have no other options in any way (eg. bop gun) more aesthetically pleasing than where you avoid using other holds within reach, but you're always choosing a line for difficulty or for some other kind of aesthetic appeal (climbing one single feature for consistency, climbing something because it's pretty, using only certain holds to force a particular movement, etc), and that's contrived. If you just wanted to get on top of the rock, you'd go up the downclimb. For everything else, you're making a choice (or statement if you're putting up a new line) about difficulty or aesthetics. If you want to climb something different, by all means do so if that appeals to you more, just don't claim to have climbed "that" problem!

"why would anyone feel it neccesary to make a harder less natural start hold for the other hand? The difficulty of the line shouldnt ride on whether or not you start matched or hands apart."

Why do people add difficult but unaesthetic sit starts? Difficulty. If you don't want to do it, don't. In the other thread you said you wanted to go work on Fynnished! I could ask the same thing: Why would you limit only your hands to one crack, while letting your feet use another? That's easily one of the most contrived problems in NS! Wicked hard I hear, but contrived. And bad ass looking to boot.

[stoneseeker]

I think you are either over simplifying the argument or misinterpreting me when you say:

If you just wanted to get on top of the rock, you'd go up the downclimb. " and...
"Difficulty. If you don't want to do it, don't."

Obviously I like picking the most difficult line on the rock, otherwise I wouldnt be interested in bouldering. I realize it is contrived.
Let's say some one said you had to start tough sailors upside down. That would be ridiculous. The contrived nature of most bouldering problems makes sense to me, and I love the difficulty, but I'm just calling out the inconsistency of the start hold thing.

I like what fuschl pointed out. He pointed out when the guide book or author is really specific about where RH and LH goes, (no matter how strange) then you follow that if you want the climb. If you climb it your way, then so be it, I agree. I guess thats the best its gonna get, cause people will always be in disagreement with what is the "ultimate" line, or starting holds, or most natural and difficult way to climb it.

So, no, I didnt climb Mikes line as he intended. But personally, I felt it was way harder and cooler to save the arete for its own much more difficult and proper SDS project, and leave the unnecesary start hold of the other climb that Mike made.

[chameleon]

it's obviously raining out.

tards.

[fuchsl]

maybe it will stop in time for MNB

[the kydd]

[quote]it's obviously raining out.

tards./quote]

Hahaha! Well said, my friend!

All this talk of where to start, which holds to use and what's a legitimate assent has reminded me of a question posed by a friend here in Vancouver...

Is it possible for a "classic" problem to also be an eliminate?

[smilingrock]

Quote from Luke:

"I think "Tough Sailors" is the most relevant example. People are using DIFFERENT HOLDS to start. Also, in DIFFERENT WAYS. If I undercling a hold, and someone else crimps next to it, and yet another sidepulls left of it, with the opposite hand... WHOS RIGHT?!?"

Answer from Mike:

Me.

I case is napping.

[smilingrock]

I spelled "my" wrong. I meant to say:

My case is napping.

[stoneseeker]

Is it possible for a "classic" problem to also be an eliminate?

No.


Also, I have resolved I was wrong to bash Mike's truly "creative" climb, and in good sport, shall climb it his intended way as soon as weather permits! (while simultaneously smiling and saying pleasant things about the movement and aesthetic)


I also have resolved that grumpy old rope climbers cant be bothered with sit down starts because their bums are too fragile.

[Scooter]

start in the general area. honestly, if the climb is determined by the way it is started then it is probably not worth talking about

i stand start everything

and am told drop knees are cheating

[Scooter]

You're all retarded

- c stamp.

[ben smith]

Sucka free rules:
-start on same hands, check guide or first ascent, if not defined explicitly its because its no easier if you use any reasonable hands, see tough sailors, switched hands is legit if it makes things easier so don't be a whiny tit if you're the FA and new beta is found.
-any feet, flip upside down if you want.
- follow the general line of the problem, you're a kook if you traverse way the frig out to one side
-if its contrived but good (fynnished) do it according to the FA rules and don't cheat. If its contrived but stupid why bother?
- contrived doesn't always equal flowery but usually it does.

anyone who says that all climbing is contrived because some 70 year old cripple could gimp shuffle his way up the back should be wearing a helmet and mouthguard. You're regurgitating the sentiments of 30,000 drooling tourists and stumbling inbred rednecks.

[Zamboni]

Ben, I think you just called Mike a Whiny Tit!

[ben smith]

nope. there were two defined start holds in that case, one of which wasn't used by a sucka.