Red Feather

Red Feather

Posted on 05. Mar, 2009 by in Red Feather Lakes

Yesterday, the second project at the Swoosh went down. I added 6 moves of awesome tension climbing to an existing Chuck Fryberger problem. I am calling the new line Mastadon and I think it is solid at V12. It basically climbs a V10 or V11 into a solid V10, with no rest. The rock is so nice and the line is amazing. For now it finishes on an obvious drop off jug. It is possible that it could be topped out from the jug at a very high level, perhaps V15 or harder. The whole problem would be one of the hardest and best problems in Colorado, but for now we will settle for this.

Mastodon V12 from Jamie Emerson on Vimeo.

27 Responses to “Red Feather”

  1. Maxim

    05. Mar, 2009

    that band is………so good.

  2. Julian

    05. Mar, 2009

    Cool! Would be super sweet to go to the top, though mere mortals such as myself should probably keep their mouths shut on the topic.

  3. Kevin

    05. Mar, 2009

    YES! Amazing sound track!

  4. elbow tendonitis

    05. Mar, 2009

    The climbing and video are barely better than your comment on 8a. Well done.

  5. medic

    05. Mar, 2009

    got any full boulder pics?

    i’d like to see what’s after that.

  6. anon

    05. Mar, 2009

    So, just how many moves, at what difficulty, do you have to add to an existing problem to rename it??

    Do I have to sit down for a new start, or can I just pull on like the Vampire?

    This is a lame trend. Adding moves to an existing problem is just that, not a new problem!

    Looks like a sit start to the Product to me…

  7. elbow tendonitis

    05. Mar, 2009

    I meant that in a way that they’re all top of the line but the comment made my day.

  8. campusman

    06. Mar, 2009

    i heard u r coming to gl

  9. B3

    06. Mar, 2009

    Its hard to see the full boulder, and I assure you that from the jug where I finished it is at least V15. I doubt it goes honestly, but there is a chance.
    In regards to “renaming”, both of these problems are substantially more difficult from the new starts. The Vampire adds 4 grades of difficulty. and this new sit start adds 6 moves and two grades. It would be impossible to climb them from a lower start. I have never liked calling things SDS this or that, so I propose new names for full lines.

  10. Sarah Marvez

    06. Mar, 2009

    Hi Jamie,

    I have to wonder how this fits in with lower start precedents in climbing. For instance, Ghost Dance has 3 starts, one V6, a lower at V7, and the sit at V9. There are not, however, 3 problems on this line. There are many other examples, where a harder lower start is simply called the sit start.

    I’m not sure I agree with renaming problems because a lower start was added, and not just because Chuck put up the FA. I guess I look at precedents that have come before, this should give some guidance about how new problems should be named.

  11. Cryptochild

    06. Mar, 2009

    Ha ha, this is a funny argument y’all are having!
    About nothing…
    I thought real Boulder problems topped out? Everything else is just masturbation; and I say this with all due respect.
    Sounds like its still a project, albeit impossible, maybe?

    Anyways, have fun out there Jamie! I wish I could climb too!!

  12. B3

    06. Mar, 2009

    The precedent that has been set is as follows, as I see it. I will use Hueco Tanks as the example, since we are both very familiar with the area.

    The Sound of Power on East Mtn. is a V4 that is hardly mentioned because the obvious and much harder sit start Power of Landjager V11 was climbed. No one chastised Fred Nicole for adding a three move sit start to Better Eat You Wheaties and renaming it Crown of Aragorn. Or Elie Chevaux for adding a sit start to Big Iron on His Hip and giving us Shaken not Stirred. I can’t recall what the original stand start is, but we are all familiar with Dale Goddards obvious sit start Full Service. Li, Chablanke, Mo Mojo, More Silence, Barefoot on Sacred Ground, Dark Age, Purple Flowers, the list of examples that would show this precedent goes on and on. While there are some problems that fall into the opposite example, they are generally of a poor quality and a less obvious start than the orginal.(Dragonfly SDS)
    The problems in Red Feather you mention are from more obvious starts and add quality to both problems, in my opinion. “I am not sure I agree with renaming problems because a lower start was added” Then you disagree with the precedent set by Elie Chevaux, Dale Goddard, Toni Lamprecht and Fred Nicole. I’ll side with them in this instance. Thanks for your input Sarah, it is appreciated.

  13. yorick

    06. Mar, 2009

    So, if I add a move to Midnight Lightning I can call it something completely different?
    Usually I completely agree with your logic Jamie, but this sounds and feels wrong to me. I think it’s possible that Hueco is the exception not the rule. There are so many people that blow through there during the winter and many don’t know the exact history, so it’s easy to just call it something new. I think the more general precedent is to call it a sit start or, at the very least, as illustrated by your first example, allude to the original problem in your new name (sound of power -> power of landjager).

  14. B3

    07. Mar, 2009

    Fred has set the precedent and it is one I agree with. It would be difficult to argue that he is someone that has “blown through” Hueco and is unfamiliar with its history. He made Hueco’s history. This precedent has also been used by Dave Graham (The Story of Two Worlds, one of the hardest and most famous problems in the world, which added a few moves to the Dagger, also a hard and famous problem), Daniel Woods (The Lochness Monster, RMNP), Ty Landman (The Power of Ten,RMNP, which added two moves to a problem I did, and I fully agree with Ty renaming the sit start) and Paul Robinson (Raisins, Joe’s Valley, Riddles in the Park, RMNP). It seems appropriate in some cases to play off the stand start name, but I dont think it is law. I think what is being lost here is that if one were to start where Chuck started, they would be climbing “The Product”. If you were to add a lower start to Midnight Lightening then you would have the right to name it, but climbing Midnight Lightening from the accepted starting holds would still be climbing Midnight Lightening. Take this for example. Boone Speed added a poor and inobvious sit start to the classic Better Eat Your Wheaties, which he renamed Better Build Your Woodies. I think Boone was in the right in renaming this, and it doesn’t change the fact the people still line up to repeat the more obvious stand start. The same would happen with Midnight Lightening.
    In regards to Jason’s comment, Worm’s Way? Originally this was a drop off? nice to hear from you. hope your knee is doing well.

  15. Sarah Marvez

    07. Mar, 2009

    Alright, one last post just because I’m stubborn, I admit it. Perhaps the person I agree with most is cryptochild, about this being mental masturbation, but I can’t help myself.
    (if anyone tops this sucker out, I won’t argue with you if you rename it)

    Here’s my thoughts- the proposed grade for Mastadon is one V grade harder than what the Product was given. Its in the same direction of travel as the original climb, and the two starts are roughly a few feet apart.

    Thinking about the problems you listed in Hueco, I think there are distinctions. Crown of Aragorn traverses left into the the obvious start hold at the bottom of better eat your wheaties and adds 5 v grades. Shaken not stirred adds considerable length (roughly 12 moves or so?) to big iron on his hip, as well as 5 v grades. Power of landyager adds 7 grades to the sound of power.

    I think given the circumstances this problem it is different than those examples given in hueco. Much fewer moves, in the line of travel of the original line, and minimal added difficulty, so I don’t see the value of giving a new name.

    Off to other things, have a good weekend climbing everybody!

  16. B3

    07. Mar, 2009

    Sarah, first of all, you write that my new problem has “much fewer moves” when compared to Power of Landjager, or Crown of Aragorn, however this is simply not true. Mastadon adds 6 moves into the starting holds of The Product. Where as COA adds four moves and POL adds 5 moves.

    Many of the problems I mentioned, Including Better Build Your Woodies, More Silence, Power of Landjager, Dark Age etc continue in the line of travel of the original problem, and have been given new names, all with the support of the community.

    Finally, Mastodon is two or three grades harder than the Product. The Product has been downgraded by the three repeaters and the consensus is V10. I repeated The Product in about 5 tries and then spent three additional days (4 in total) on Mastodon. Everyone who has actually tried Mastodon (and also climbed the Product) agrees that whatever the number, it adds considerable and notable difficulty.

    None of this matters, however because the issue at hand is that if someone starts a problem from a different and lower set of holds then they have the right to name it e.g. Better Build Your Woodies, Crown of Aragorn, Dark Age, Dark Waters etc. I am not the one to determine if its one move, five moves or ten moves, three grades, 7 grades or whatever. That is ambiguous and arbitrary.

    Again, the precedent that has been set is that when Fred Nicole, Daniel Woods, Dave Graham, Ty Landman, or Paul Robinson adds a two move (let alone 6 move) sit start to an existing problem, the problem gets renamed and graded. You might not see the value in this, however, those climbers, and myself, do.

    Thanks again for questioning me. I do appreciate it. Jamie

  17. Ed

    09. Mar, 2009

    Get a life people. In 100 years no one is going to care what you called an arbitrary section of a piece of rock.

  18. B3

    09. Mar, 2009

    Ed, I agree, but its a fun subject to debate while we are around right now.

  19. yorick

    09. Mar, 2009

    I think the “new” name should allude to the original line. I think there’s precedent for both, but even in generating your list to justify your position, you listed names that do refer to the original line (eg., “build your woodies”). I guess I prefer Biographie Extension to Realization too. For me, the premise is that someone else climbed the basic line, the basic sequence. Adding a few moves on the back or bottom shows some additional creativity, but it’s incremental compared to the original vision to see, clean, and establish the line. I think the first name should serve as a baseline that subsequent variants should allude to. Following this logic, new ascents preserve history. Following the “add two moves, name it what you want” it isn’t mental masturbation, it seems to be about claiming FA’s that should have a huge * next to them.

  20. B3

    09. Mar, 2009

    Maybe it should or its nice if it does, but I don’t think it has to. Chuck neither found nor cleaned The Product, so should he name it something that Ben Scott suggested? In the end, people will do what they want and the community will decide whats appropriate. When Dave has a chance to do a one move sit start to the classic arete Boogalagga to give Big Paw his new 8C, or when he does a three move sit start the Dagger and calls it the Story of Two Worlds, or when Chris Sharma adds a 4 or 5 bolt extension to Biographie, the climbing world agrees that the route is called Realization, or when Fred adds four moves to Better Eat your Wheaties to give Crown of Aragorn. Like it or not, that is the precedent that has been set and it has been set by standard setting rock climbers on standard setting rock climbs around the world. Clearly Mastodon is not standard setting in any way, however it does follow the precedent.

  21. NS

    09. Mar, 2009

    Daniel Woods should be put to shame for naming his boulder problem “Jade.” It is most clear that it should appropriately be referred to as The Green 45 Stand Sit Start.

  22. yorick

    09. Mar, 2009

    Jamie, I understand your point, and it is a thoughtful point. But in naming the few climbs you have made, most of which are more recent, you’re ignoring a countless number of “sits” “variations” and “extensions” that are tacked onto climbs. You’re also ignoring the fact that most French climbers were outraged about the (from their perspective) “American” insistence on calling Biographie Realization. For me, the upsetting part is that, in naming something different, we are erasing part of the past. Why not embrace an extension as an extension of something that was already there? I would rather see well-spoken, though-provoking climbers like you advocate an ethic that honors the past rather than embrace a “precedent” that seems to endorse a marketing-sort of individual achievement.

  23. B3

    10. Mar, 2009

    I think we will have to agree to disagree. I am not erasing Chuck’s problem in anyway and I am not trying to take anything away from what Chuck has done. It still exists and people are welcome to climb it. The real hero is Ben Scott, who for the past 8 years has been hiking, scrubbing and cleaning all of these amazing lines and willingly handing them over.

  24. Anon

    10. Mar, 2009

    I second the Huge props to Tendon for finding and sharing so many rad, amazing, inspiring blocs with us. Also good on Jamie for promoting some discourse here.

  25. yorick

    11. Mar, 2009

    fair enough.

    it’s still a great send and a great blog.

  26. CBD

    12. Mar, 2009

    Being on the outside I would just like to say that it is easy to misread or misinterpret what you see or read on the internet. The Product is a striking line. It climbs the only feature on an otherwise seemingly blank wall. Someone who has no knowledge of the area could probably look at both videos and think you are basically climbing the same line. Couple that with the mention of the second and third ascensionists downgrading the original line, someone else having found and cleaned the original line, and then climbing and renaming a lower start and it almost sounds like an undercover diss towards Chuck. Hence the reason the internet is the devil.

  27. yorick

    16. Mar, 2009

    I realize this conversation is over, but, to stir the pot, look at “what” and “why” Toni named his recent problem:

Leave a Reply