Defining a Problem, continued.

Posted on 28. Jul, 2010 by B3 in News

Last week Paul Robinson reclimbed Black Eagle in Rocklands after several holds had broken. A good effort on Paul’s part and this is a very nice wall and I am certain what Paul did is really worthy. Paul seems to suggest a renaming of the problem to “Bleagle.” This brings back the idea of “how do we define what it is we are doing?”, and its importance to bouldering. If a significant amount of the rock or holds on a problem breaks, is it appropriate to rename that section of rock? If “Bleagle ” were to break again, and say for example Fred Nicole came along, would he earn the right to re-re-name it back to Black Eagle if he re-re-climbed it, or should he call it something totally different? Or Is it logical to keep the name given by the first ascentionist of the line that was climbed? Anyways, this is a great practical example of how these kinds of things come into play, especially when a climber makes a claim about having done something new or different.

63 Responses to “Defining a Problem, continued.”

The Truth

28. Jul, 2010

I think “Bleagle” is far superior to Black Eagle- Post break.
Justin

28. Jul, 2010

Consider larger routes, like say on El Capitan…A big hold on the route Free Rider broke a year or two ago. This hold was part of the crux section of the crux pitch on the route. If someone had tried to rename the route after this breakage they would be laughed at and pelted with bananas. Hell, there are routes where entire sections of wall have fallen off, like many metric tons of rock, and they retain their original names.

Renaming a route smacks of letting your ego get too involved. Leave it as it was.
Philly Cheese

28. Jul, 2010

I don’t think its alright to rename boulders after breakage or whatnot, especially without having validated the new name with the first ascentionist in the first place. There is just so much hold breakage going on out there that it seems that it could be potentially troublesome for guidebook editors and the climbing community the world over.

That being said, it is interesting to consider that a climb might become completely different through significant breakage, meaning that previous sequences aren’t even possible. It may be a completely new line. But for that to be the case, I would think it means that the start and finish of the problem have changed, or that the line the problem exploits is irrevocably altered (changes direction or uses a completely different feature).

I do want to give full props to Paul for reclimbing an already difficult boulder problem. I believe that Paul made an effort to keep a part of Fred Nicole’s name in “Bleagle”. Surely its out of some form of respect for Fred that he chose this name.
Jshwa

28. Jul, 2010

I get the logic…especially with what Paul did here. The problem wasn’t entirely renamed. “Bleagle” being a shorter mix of the words “Black Eagle” could be a representation of a problem with less to use (broken holds); therefore a shorter name. Since the root of the name still exists I say respect is still be given to the FA.
Crafty

28. Jul, 2010

I’m of the opinion that the original name should stay, even after significant breakage. If only to show respect for the first first ascensionist.
Andy Mann

28. Jul, 2010

I’ve always believed, in the case of broken holds, the problem should not be renamed. (Certainly a Fred Nicole test-piece that was once the hardest boulder problem on an entire continent). If you must rename it, then ask the first ascentionist for permission. Paul, come on, this problem is simply, beautifully, and originally: Black Eagle V14. Fred told me that the problem was named due to the silhouette you can see in the distance that forms a sitting eagle. The Black Eagle is the native eagle to the Cedarberg Mountains. Don’t erase the past.
Carlos

28. Jul, 2010

I find it equally annoying as giving a boulder problem a new name when someone does it from a sit start. Why not just call it a sit start to XY problem?
Would we want “Midnight Lighting” or “The Mandala” to be re-named when a hold deteriorates or brakes? Midnight Lightning should always be Midnight Lightning.
Why can’t we just call it like it is, Black Eagle but now after a few holds have broken.
My theory is that re-naming an existing problem comes from the need to feel like something important has been done and “I am not just spending my time climbing boulders”.
Black Eagle is a much cooler name anyways.
jimmy golden

28. Jul, 2010

hmm.. paul sucks ass he cant mantle shit, i enjoy watching him fail on slopey topouts……
ballsackith

28. Jul, 2010

I think renaming a already established line that has broke or even had a sit start added, is completely ridiculous, I mean imagine if Tony Lamiche renamed The Mandala after sending the sit start and after a crucial hold broke to The Melancholy Drama or something like that? hahahahha! whats going on here?
Justin

29. Jul, 2010

I feel like this is a case by case thing, with many factors coming into play. For example, did the start hold break off completely causing the problem to start in a different location than it previously had? If that’s the case the line could be something that is not just a changed version of the old climb but something that would have been more like an alternate start to the problem even it hadn’t broken. In that case I wouldn’t be opposed to a renaming, tho I would perfer it stay the same. If the start and finish haven’t hanged positions, only changed shape and size it is still the same climb only the difficulty has changed(even if the sequence has changed drasticly, since sequences are very often different for different people anyway). Something to note should be that paul has done a few “FA’s” post break before and never changed the name, only noted that it was post break, maybe this is major change, maybe not.
Marcus

29. Jul, 2010

Everyone was still going to know Paul did the first ascent after the breakage, whether he renamed it or not. It seems like the only time a rename happens is when the problem is so hard that very few other people in the world can climb it. I’ve been on countless climbs that have broken and changed over the years, and names don’t change because it’s about the line, not one of the holds. The only reason I can think someone would want to rename a climb because they made the second first ascent would be to leave their mark on it, which seems egotistical.

On the other hand, Bleagle’s a funny name and Paul’s a really nice guy, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he renamed it as such to pay his respects to Frederick.
bs

29. Jul, 2010

I think one major problem that reappears very frequently the last years is that very young climbers get their egos pushed far too much through the attention they get by the climbing media. The controversy around David Lama at Cerro Torre, Daniel Woods supposedly V1?s and now this thing with Paul Robinson.

They usually have much more power than reason and climbing for them is just a game and not a philosophy or life style they have chosen. I mean its easy to live this life if you are young but the climbers that defined this sport have been 10+ years older and really committed themselves to climbing out of passion. Some of them even contributed not only radical new views on climbing but also had some kind of life vision or philosophy that is representative for the spirit of our sport.

Hence the philosophical contributions from these teens do not exceed the level of bumbaclot, which is fine, i mean they are still evolving. But its really important that the media reflects on that. I think that is the real issue, not some name or number.
m

29. Jul, 2010

if you had to define boulder problems by sequences, then you wouldn’t have but countless names for every single line.
it’s not only a matter of a crucial hold breaking. different sequences on the same problem happen all the time. if a hold gets overlooked when doing the FA, but used by a repeater making the original sequence harder (or even easier for that matter), is the line a different one? does it deserve to be renamed?
holds break all the time, almost every ascent of a problem is a different ascent from the original one in terms of holds used and sequences conceived to fit different bodies and styles, it would be just laughable to claim a FA every time a boulder problem gets climbed in a different way.
on dreamtime a massive hold broke last year, the piece of rock that came out was huge and crucial at the same time. the problem has been climbed a few time since then and nobody thought to give the line a different name (surely not adam ondra who did the FA of the whole line after the break).
what happens here, I reckon, is p robinson saying to the world: “now the problem is really hard, much harder then what f nicole climbed, and I am so strong I have to remind you by giving this thing a new name. in case you forget”.
Jan

29. Jul, 2010

A different example: Dreamtime.
Still the same name…. And what a name that is!
DaveH

29. Jul, 2010

@m – At first thought I agree with you, that seems to be exactly what Paul is saying.

He sort of has a history of this though. It’s not Rastaman Vibration Sit after all, it’s Lucid Dreaming.
ktmt

29. Jul, 2010

Paul Robinson is one of my favorite pro climbers out there right now. But I think he erred with this one. I agree with Justin,

“Renaming a route smacks of letting your ego get too involved. Leave it as it was.”
cj

29. Jul, 2010

Paul must have thought about the rename and most likely he came to the conclusion it is a completely different problem, so i can’t argue with his experianced decision. Because controversy only happens on classic lines such as this, there is definitely room to discuss the history and changes of the problem in the guide book so the original f.a will never be lost (if a rename does occur). But yea personally i think in most situations a rename is useless and would cause the local climbing community to go crazy.

@ Justin (1st post) -good point, but routes are completely different than boulder problems so it seems like an invalid comparison here
sissy_fuss

29. Jul, 2010

We had a case in Australia not too long ago where a guide book editor used made-up (and insulting) route names for a whole crag where the developers didn’t want to agree to his terms of publication.
RAG

29. Jul, 2010

The line is named, “Black Eagle.” Moves are a completely different issue and don’t get named. We name lines, not moves. Gym dorks may think the opposite, but that’s what makes them, “gym dorks.”

The gray area is when the start or finish locations change substantively. This “substantively ” qualifier is very subjective, but the issue is whether you have a done a truly new line or not. If Black Eagle is a clean face with only one line on it, it’s hard to see justification for a name change.

But there is a legit argument that a line has never truly been done until the lowest sensible (key word) start goes down, and thus a new name can be applied for what is now the first true FA. Prior “sends” are now “attempts,” and the higher start is invalidated. You can’t say you’ve truly done a line until you’ve done it from the lowest sensible point.

There are countless sit starts that truly suck. That doesn’t change my argument since there are countless lines that suck due to shitty moves, and the location of the shitty move in a problem is not relevant. So a sit start can ruin a great problem, and you can skip it. But you haven’t done the true line.

So if Paul does the sit start of Black Eagle, he can argue that he has done the first true FA of the line and thus is entitled to rename it.

Perhaps to “Black Eagle sds.”
Chris

29. Jul, 2010

I feel that it fine to give a new name to a sit start (an extremely common practice), but not to broken problems or routes. However, I sincerely disagree with what bs said about p-rob. Climbing is absolutely his lifestyle (you don’t take a multi-year trip around the Earth to pursue what you feel is just a game), and he’s played a huge role in the progression of our sport.
Pablo

29. Jul, 2010

Paul broke a hold off algerita a few years back and entered it as “algerita post break” on his scorecard. This is another example of the climbing community overreacting to something that’s really a non-issue (yes I appreciate the irony of this post)
cj

29. Jul, 2010

I agree with “chris” but i have to question myself why renaming a problem from a ss is completly accepted. Many problems are done from the ss now because climbers have new strengths and visions of whats possible, but the road was paved by the first ascent. Back when the FA was done that was the true line, thus in logic (according to everyones response to renaming a broken problem), the original name should stick after a ss. I disagree with the logic, im just pointing out some people’s conflicting viewpoints of renaming an ss and renaming a broken problem. like RAG said, if the ss is done to black eagle, it should be named black eagle ss
Alan K

29. Jul, 2010

Jaws, jaws II. I think there should be some indication that a problem or route has changed significantly with a break, but the original line should keep the name of the first person to see the vision through. Something like adding a # or letter might help add a subtle note that its the same line, but different climb
JB

30. Jul, 2010

Well here is a question, did he even rename it in the first place? I’m not entirely sure he did. Looking over the only place that contains his words unchanged, his blog, he never actually says he is renaming the problem. In his post he refers to the problem as Black Eagle multiple times and the name Bleagle is only referenced in the title of his post. It seems to me that this could be more of a nickname than a serious attempt at renaming the problem. Especially as Bleagle is really only an abbreviation of Black Eagle. I certainly know many climbers who abbreviate the names of problems or refer to them by a nickname.

There has been a good debate here around the definition of a boulder problem but lets not center that discussion around this one problem until we have heard from Paul as to whether he really was renaming the problem.
JW

30. Jul, 2010

@JB Good point.
B3

30. Jul, 2010

According to 27crags.com, Paul did rename the problem.

“He was able to put up the FA of this beautiful boulder last night and is renaming it Bleagle (8B+)”

http://27crags.com/teams/27-crags/blog/paul-robinson-sends-bleagle-8b+
d-j

30. Jul, 2010

jamie, you are starting to remind me of Jens from 8a with all this drama
jacob

30. Jul, 2010

paul called it black eagle on his score card…a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.
m

30. Jul, 2010

he didn’t rename it then, according to his 8a scorecard.
well, I guess an apology is due for all the fuss out of nothing: sorry paul. great effort your ascent.
m

30. Jul, 2010

even though it’s not really a FA, is it?
ejw

30. Jul, 2010

Paul has logged this climb on his 8a scorecard as Black Eagle with the following comments-

“amazing one of the best. a true stunnnaaaaaa. very MUCH different with the broken holds. new beta that completely changes the climb entirely.HARD. BLackEAGLE. i did not rename anything.”

http://www.8a.nu/?IncPage=http%3A//www.8a.nu/scorecard/AscentList.aspx%3FUserId%3D2603%26AscentType%3D1%26AscentClass%3D0%26AscentListTimeInterval%3D1%26AscentListViewType%3D0
Pedro Stabile

30. Jul, 2010

This just in, from his 8a.nu scorecard, where he registered the climb as black eagle:

“amazing one of the best. a true stunnnaaaaaa. very MUCH different with the broken holds. new beta that completely changes the climb entirely.HARD. BLackEAGLE. i did not rename anything.”

Did he regret it, or did all of us jump to conclusions? Cheers.
b-rad

30. Jul, 2010

Paul’s 8a card says otherwise:

“amazing one of the best. a true stunnnaaaaaa. very MUCH different with the broken holds. new beta that completely changes the climb entirely.HARD. BLackEAGLE. i did not rename anything. “
B3

30. Jul, 2010

Paul did name it “Bleagle” originally, as this is what was written about the climb in the initial report on 27crags.com,

“He was able to put up the FA of this beautiful boulder last night and is renaming it Bleagle (8B+)”’

and then it seems with all the discussion has changed his mind

“On his scorecard he will still refer to the climb as Black Eagle, as Bleagle was just a funny name he used because he was so psyched on the climb.”

Good effort and again, it doesn’t take away from the fact that he climbed reclimbed a great problem put up by Fred Nicole.
me

30. Jul, 2010

hes just a stupid kid..trying to leave a mark on the world thing is NOBODY CARES
cj

30. Jul, 2010

I didn’t know bashing paul was included in the definition of a boulder problem. And yes jamie, this blog does take away from his re-ascent of Black Eagle in some form or another. Was this blog intended to question paul’s judgement or to help define what a boulder problem is? Well, i guess thats the consequence of pauls decision of creating a blog while being the one of the most elite boulderers in the world.
B3

30. Jul, 2010

Where did I “bash” Paul? If I interjected an opinion about Paul, it was this:

“Good effort and again, it doesn’t take away from the fact that he climbed reclimbed a great problem put up by Fred Nicole.”

and this

“A good effort on Paul’s part and this is a very nice wall and I am certain what Paul did is really worthy”

This blog was intended to display a practical application of the importance of defining what it is we are doing. Clearly, a lot of people had strong opinions about this, which also makes it relevant. Paul climbing a problem after it broke, renaming it, and then changing his mind after the community became outspoken I find very relevant as well to my original post.
Mostly I just asked questions about the nature of what he did.
grave

30. Jul, 2010

“Paul climbing a problem after it broke, renaming it, and then changing his mind after the community became outspoken”

Maybe 27crags.com misreported it, Jamie. He probably doesn’t care. He was just calling Bleagle to shorten the name and shit got taken out of context.. I don’t think he really has steady internet down there to be checking on and reading all this controversy.
B3

30. Jul, 2010

The 27crags.com post was written by his girlfriend, so I doubt it was mis-reported.

Again this is what was written on the blog a few days ago:
“He was able to put up the FA of this beautiful boulder last night and is renaming it Bleagle (8B+)”’ although that changed this morning.

It seems obvious that in response to all of the negative attention this seems to have drawn, he has taken that back and just gone with the original name. Paul is a great climber and has the freedom to do whatever he wants, and I think it’s very interesting that the community can have such an impact. Where do these “rules” come from? Why are so many climbers upset about this? or feel that this was in some way not the “right” thing to do? Who decides these answers? Paul? The community? I don’t have the answer myself but it is interesting to me to lay out the facts, then hear from as many people as possible and again, very relevant to my earlier post about defining a boulder problem.

Paul wrote me a lengthy message explaining his actions, and he most certainly cares very much, which I think is a very good thing.
TK

30. Jul, 2010

“Why are so many climbers upset about this?”

Are people really that upset? Seems more like typical interweb dialogue…most people actually seemed pretty respectful and just gave an opinion.
cj

30. Jul, 2010

i was referring the “bashing” to the comments that didn’t relate with defining a problem. ie @me, or @jimmy golden. anyway its easy to agree that this rename was a perfect example for the contraversial topic
B3

31. Jul, 2010

I agree that most of the posts are civil and I greatly appreciate that. I do think that there are a few really negative comments directed towards Paul, both here and on 8a. Perhaps I overstated the negative reaction? That wasn’t my intention.
Adam M

31. Jul, 2010

Oh…my…god. what is wrong with this. Is every body kidding me or what?

While all these people are at home, on computers talking about what another climber can and can’t do, I was here, right behind Paul when he sent it.

It’s a freakin joke. We laughed about how the problem had less holds, so the name should have less letters. It was funny when the title “Bleagle” came up.

Of course the problem is still “Black Eagle.” It’s just what WE felt like calling it at the time. The line got repeated, it’s gorgeous, and it is really hard. All you people can call it “Surely” if you want to. Fred can call it Black Eagle or “PIle of Crap.” Who cares?

I’m going to keep on climbing down here in the Rocklands while the debate goes on and on for now reason. It would have been cool if everybody saw the title and laughed like we did and just moved on, shoed up, chalked up and went climbing. Instead Paul got shit on!
Goodness gracious people.

Sign off and go climbing. Start renaming stuff downgrading/upgrading every problem you get on and start some shit. Be the Climbing flavor of the month to bitch about.

But for the love of god would you just go climbing?
Timpson

31. Jul, 2010

Let us not conjecture negatively and take away from a great piece of climbing on a classic and important problem. Let us not commit personal attacks, but instead educate ourselves about the problem and the possible motivations for name changes and FA claims. Perhaps a boulder problem differs from a 100 foot or 2000 foot route? Perhaps broken holds on 8 or 20 feet of climbing alter the problem enough to become something entirely different? As usual, as humans and as climbers, we are too quick to judge without proper assesment. I prefer to ask questions, which encourages discussion and pondering. But of course comes the inevitable naysaying and judgemental bashing. As stated before, great piece of climbing.
miagt

31. Jul, 2010

thought i’d skip over hear since it’s raining down south and see what’s going on. What amazes me is that Paul even knows that people are talking about it. This is so indicative about the insecurity of many “pro” climbers is the fact that Paul even cares that people are talking about him renaming. Best advice is enjoy the trip and get off the computer. He is sitting in Rocklands area trolling the net.

I’m under the impression that the name should remain the same at the very least out of respect for one of the greatest innovators in bouldering history.

I see no paul bashing on this forum just people expressing opinions. Since I never and I mean never go on 8anu maybe there are some folks over there going Ape.
massiveego

31. Jul, 2010

just read paul’s blog and have to say that the kid expects folks to send him a message before posting stuff on the net?!?!

I’m sure paul is a nice guy but his most recent blog post comes across as being…..Well I’m not going to say it.

He has to reply to ever single comment said on the net about him.

I don’t think Sharma is a god but a lot of respect for him not having a blog.
m

02. Aug, 2010

the fact that people talk about what paul does shouldn’t come as a surprise to him or his friends who are there in rocklands with him. he is one of the leading boulderers of his generation, one of the few elite climbers who can climb 8c+ bloc, so I for one take very seriously what he does or what he says.
if he thinks that a boulder problem becomes another problem after the breaking of some holds (he doesn’t tell how many, does it take one, two, three?), and claims a new FA, well, that’s of some importance. it’s precisely the fact that comes from one the strongest climbers that makes it of some relevance, it has to do with what a boulder problem is, what a name is, even what a FA is.
being paul what he is, I guess he should get used to it. it’s not a matter of going out climbing instead of typing on a keyboard, it’s more like the natural consequence of what you say or do being one of the few who can actually define what bouldering is while doing it.
Adam M

03. Aug, 2010

First of all, miagt, please don’t presume to tell us what we should be doing on rest/rain/hot days down in the rocklands. we will “troll” whenever we want and go climbing the rest. Thank you. We are enjoying the trip immensely, and going on the internet once every week or so and finding people blowing up about a boulder problem is…well…annoying.

So are we putting Paul on trial here? If so, I think a lawyer or two would have said, “objection! Speculation.” To about everything on this site.

I’m not sure how people came to the conclusion that just because Paul said it, it should be done. His word is not divine, and now people are saying (in a whiney voice.) “OOOhhhh. Bleagle? I don’t want to call it bleagle, I want to call it Black Eagle. But Paul renamed it now.”

Are you kidding. I could call a bunch of people on this site Idiots, but it’s not their actual name, nor does everyone have to adhere to it.

On the way over here, we discussed it, and decided that Science should be called History, and bouldering will hereby be named Shmickerbocken. I know that this will upset some people, but i’m sure in time you will come to like it.

I was sitting around a campfire the other night drinking wine and beer with some true climbers and we were all talking about people givin paul shit the day after he went on the net to find all this stuff. Paul sat there smiling while everyone, from all places of the globe, assured him that it was no big deal and nobody really cares. Just some sites. We actually started naming a bunch of problems where this has happened before. Even in the Rocklands. But we won’t go down that road.

The climbers of most of the world just want to go climbing. He’s not really thinking about it, trust me, We’re just having a laugh.

So before people give me some licking for writing this, know that it is quite hot right now, and we are waiting for an evening session.

You may begin again everyone.
Eliott

04. Aug, 2010

the Mob is always right.
Even when the Mob is wrong they’re still right.

If its just you, and you’re carrying a big stick, man you HAVE to walk softly. So as not to piss off the Idiot tromping around with 800 other idiots who also have sticks.

V4. ++
campusman

05. Aug, 2010

<——— is wrong sometimes, but knot w/ climbs in GL