visiter le site web de generiquecialis.com
Poudre Canyon

Poudre Canyon

Posted on 10. Dec, 2010 by in News

Earlier this week I did the FA of a great roof problem in the Poudre. I dubbed it Wildwood V10. I thought it was going to be V11, but I think solid V10 is a better grade for this super fun and steep roof. It is at the Bog. Although there is an “obvious” place to start in the middle of the wall, I started three moves lower, sitting, on a bad left hand sloper and an incut slot for the right hand. The first move is to a nice pinch in the roof.

jamie

Beau Kahler was up there with his camera and took this great photo of the problem.
If you are looking at this site in Reader, enjoy the large image. If you’d like to see an uncluttered photo of the problem, simply click on the photo at the top of the page.
I cleaned up a few more very difficult projects and I hope to return soon. If the weather holds off, I think the Poudre could have 10 new problems V10 or harder by the spring time.

92 Responses to “Poudre Canyon”

  1. jacob

    16. Dec, 2010

    naming starting holds, huh? by that logic i could start an established sitstart or standstart from any different hold and have a new problem. Dai started big paw in the wrong place, in between the sit and stand, does that mean he can call this crouch start a new problem and name it?
    …whta’s in a name? a rose by any other name would smell as sweet…

  2. Michael Rathke

    16. Dec, 2010

    You are in on this discussion and I think you need to go back to your fake site buddy.

  3. Michael Rathke

    16. Dec, 2010

    /\ @slabdyno

  4. campusman

    16. Dec, 2010

    i wanna take the other side for a second

    serenity crack, sons of yesterday

    nuff said

  5. BigA

    16. Dec, 2010

    That last phrase is a bit frightening. If I am putting up first ascents, I can dictate what ethics I use?
    So i can chip holds in blank rock? I can cut down trees that are in the way? I can do all these actions that are deemed deplorable by the masses so long as I am the one doing the FA??

    Careful…that is another slippery slope

  6. B3

    16. Dec, 2010

    Salo, yes of course the first ascentionist dictates the ethic!
    Your argument states that if the masses decide chipping is ok then it is ok to chip. If the masses decide to cut trees down, then it is ok, simply because the masses said it was ok. I totally disagree. Herd morality does not make it right! EVER!

    Can you give me an example of a problem in which the FAist didn’t dictate the ethic is which that FA was done?

  7. B3

    16. Dec, 2010

    Finally! for the 100th time, I did not rename anything and until someone can provide evidence that I have then please stop saying or suggesting that. I don’t know how many times I can say this. Ken’s Problem starts three moves higher and it remains Ken’s Problem. That hasn’t changed. If you start three moves lower, it is called Wildwood. Ken’s Problem still exists. I named a lower start.

  8. BigA

    16. Dec, 2010

    Nope. My argument is the other way around. I state that if the masses say chipping is deplorable, then the FA’ist best not chip.

    Ultimately, the FA’ist does get to dictate what ethic is used, but its up to good people (in reality not the masses, or even the FA’ist at times) to decide if that ethic is best. Just because someone is doing an FA doesn’t make them right.

  9. BigA

    16. Dec, 2010

    What I was getting at with my first comment was simply the danger in stating that so long as you are doing an FA, then you have the “right” to chip and cut trees, etc.

    I suppose its just a scary thought to think that anyone can go out completely uneducated in proper ethics and do an FA with very questionable ethics just because it is their right.

  10. B3

    17. Dec, 2010

    So if the masses say chipping isn’t deplorable, then it’s ok? I disagree. The ethics of the FAist should be based on reason and logic, not on what the masses say. And I am attempting to provide an argument for that. Who decides who or what is good? I think that logic and reason are good (which I would be happy to justifiy), and those thinking devices should be our mode to establishing boulders.
    It is a scary thought that people can do what they want, but that is life. That is why I am so adamant about people applying logic and reason to what they are doing.

  11. Cardboard_dog

    17. Dec, 2010

    Actualyl that is correct. Giving the FAist complete control without input from the masses removes a key element that regulates ego and insanity. A system of checks and balances so to speak. The masses dictate the ethics and the FAist climbs according to them.
    The problem is not with Logic and reason but with the people who yield those tools and interpret them. That is for the masses. Concensus dictates what is moral and what is logical, and that is the center of the argument from which all arguments drift left or right.
    I don’t agree with renaming a climb from the sit start. It does, with or without intention, negate the name the first ascentionist gave it from the stand. If I find a boulder and clean it and climb it from the highest holds .. it should stand as what I named it. There are plenty of stronger climbers than me that put no effort into cleaning and finding boulders that are capable of doing moves I can’t do after I show them the problem. But thats just a personnal opinion.

    Keep in mind JE that I am well aware of the hard work you have put into developing many of the best areas in CO. And I’ve climbed quite a few of your boulder problems. I’m just giving my opinion .. def not trying to side with the opposition.

  12. sidepull

    17. Dec, 2010

    Jamie, I must admit, you’ve never been more wrong and the further this conversation goes the more thin your “logic” becomes. Ethics are, by definition, a communal thing. Please read any book on ethics from philosophy, sociology, psychology, or anthropology – ethics, norms, morals are socially (read: many people) constructed ideas about what is right. For example, clean climbing is an ethic, it didn’t come from one person but from several people agreeing it was okay. This collective agreement became stronger as it was published in the original Patagonia catalog, the American Alpine Journal, etc., and now clean climbing is just part of the ether. This is what is so bothersome about what you are doing here. You are making an appeal that what you have done is like what Paul, Daniel, and Fred (among others) have done to create a social ethic. Writing about it on your blog as though it were truth – ethics usually become a taken for granted assumption – only makes it seem more like truth. But the reality – the real ethic that is more common and has existed for a longer period of time – is that people don’t rename a problem for adding a few moves. Please, go to UKbouldering or Mountain Project and look – you’ll see a lot of problems that have sit, traverse, dyno, variant all added to the same name. You have simply created another ethic that you are trying to supplant as correct. What has become sad, is that, as more people point out the gray areas of your “logic” your arguments have stretched to the point of irrationality. The FAist does not dictate ethics – that has never been the convention and your assertion simply reeks of elitism. Think about the bolt wars of the 80’s – you bolt in a trad area and your bolts are chopped. You expect to keep a trad line in a sport area and you can only expect bolts. It doesn’t matter what the FAist wants if those wants are misaligned with those of the community. Overall, it saddens me that you fail to see the limits of your arguments and that you’ve taken on a tone that is so beneath you. There is no Wildwood, just a “Ken’s Roof Sit.” Nice send!

  13. BigA

    17. Dec, 2010

    No. That is not what I said. Read it this way: IF the masses apply proper logic and reason to find that chipping is deplorable, then the masses should be heard. Otherwise, I agree with you: Masses should never dictate proper behavior. I jumped ahead and assumed that they had used logic and reason, therefore finding chipping deplorable to developing new boulders.

    Leave it at that, and don’t read any further into it.

    The problem is that people will never reach a conclusion on a logical or reasonable ethic. If you don’t believe me, read the latest Rock & Ice, which has an interesting presentation of chipping by Bill Ramsey.

  14. CBdog

    17. Dec, 2010

    @PoppaChossface

    Don’t act like respecting your fellow man’s feelings is somehow not manly or that feeling feelings isn’t as well. We all cry now and then. Especially when someone starts our new problem from one move in and renames that move something lame like ” AND i sex with your girlfriend” because THATs what the name should be every time someone climbs someone else’s boulder problem from one or two moves in and renames the boulder problem. They should rename it “AND I had sex with your girlfriend”.

  15. Beaudering

    17. Dec, 2010

    hey stupid people… less bitching, more climbing.

    Not that anyone cares, But IMO chipping holds in a blank face is wrong. if there was nothing there, it should stay that way. my 2 cents.

  16. criz

    17. Dec, 2010

    Jamie your point is well made and understood. It is simple really but there are some controversies on these matters. I believe the individuals that don’t get it in this blog perhaps never will. It is admirable that you are trying to educate them but the reality is the masses do not represent the most knowledgeable and experienced climbers. You are in a minority of super strong bad ass developers! Go forth, concour, and keep posting! P.S. I am always psyched when someone adds a sit start to a a stand fa of mine. It means to me that they had the vision and strength to find more in the line. This motivates and challenges me to be a better developer and climb the whole line next time…not just the easier part of it! Just my 2 cents…

  17. joeyjoejoe

    17. Dec, 2010

    I agree with the camp that says names should be given to the line on a specific piece of rock. Somebody finding, cleaning, working out, and sending a problem is what makes it possible for others to climb. When they name the project, that name becomes a bit of climbing history, even if it is currently only a week old.

    If you dug out a couple of feet of dirt at the base of Dreamtime and added a single move, do you think it would be acceptable to rename is Wildwood?

    Nobody’s trying to say that you haven’t discovered a lot of awesome problems, especially when you tipped Dave off to Lincoln Lake. But when you take the work of somebody else (Ken in your case, Fred in the case of Dreamtime), modify it slightly and call it your own, it just looks like a really sad type of narcissism.

    Imagine somebody takes a really famous song, let’s say “Bohemian Rhapsody,” adds a new 30 second intro, then puts it up online with the title “Wildwood.” That’s what you’re doing. It’s just incredibly silly.

  18. joeyjoejoe

    17. Dec, 2010

    Sorry – I know you’re not “renaming” anything, I used the wrong word. You’re of the opinion that you’re naming the new start holds. My question about Dreamtime (or any established boulder problem) still stands. In my view, it wouldn’t be acceptable to establish a newer sit start variation to Dreamtime and call this new variation Wildwood. You would obviously call it something like “Dreamtime Sit Start 2” or something. The same reverence should be shown to any established line, not only as a sign of respect for the person who first saw, cleaned and sent the line, but for simple common sense and clarity.

  19. Zach

    17. Dec, 2010

    Maybe the ethics regarding low start naming are somewhat regional?
    Maybe this is why you’re getting so much negative reaction . . . as your blog is read from climbers everywhere.
    Here in the SEast, we generally either add “Low” or “Sit”.
    Or . . . oftentimes we do name the lower start, but simply use a li’l creativity & add a twist to the name of the original line.
    e.g. Slider – Slider Sit – Superslider (HP40)
    The Law – Breaking the Law (LRC)
    BigPoppa – GrandPoppa (Citadel)

    Of course ya’ll probably know all this, but just emphasizing that ppl from some regions will prob never accept the low start, renaming policy . . . even if it is deemed “logical”.

    Here, there is the cultural fear of being disrespectful. The pride of naming something just isn’t worth being looked down upon by our regional peers.

    Regarding your name for a low “Ken’s Roof” :
    It doesn’t really sound like “Ken” really cared much about the name . . . so this case is a bit different & I don’t really see why ppl are giving you a hard time about it.

  20. Sebastian

    17. Dec, 2010

    I think the problem confusion arises when you say that you will use logic to support your point, when in reality logic doesn’t provide a clear answer, or maybe there is a clear answer but it hasn’t been provided. The argument that adding a name to a lower start opens the door for more and more “new” problems with just slightly lower starts is follows the form of reductio ad absurdum, which is simply extending the argument to its extreme and showing that the extreme is absurd and therefore the argument wrong. I personally think there isn’t a clear cut answer to the issue and in reality the practice followed in each instance simply reflects the many influences acting on the ascentionist and the ascentionist’s reaction to those influences. The motives and values are unique for each person and each example and it’s probably a waste of time to even discuss it.

    To close, I’ll just say that chipping is wrong. Hopefully most people don’t need to be convinced of that.

  21. aford

    17. Dec, 2010

    @BigA: I think what Jamie is trying to get at here (correct me if I’m wrong) is that regardless of what the popular ethics are (and I think this apply’s to all aspects of ethics, not just climbing) the FAist or individual has the decision entirely in their hands regarding what is appropriate or not, what is right or wrong, good or bad. In this sense the choice of what ethical conducts to abide by while doing an FA is up to that individual, regardless of what the ethics of the greater climbing community are and those choices made (as well as the right to make those choices) are completely independent of the consequences. Do I think people should chip holds and cut down trees? No, but that doesn’t change the fact that at the end of the day, it is still their choice. In laymen terms, people can and will do what they want. Additionally just because a choice made gos against what is generally excepted by society as ethically correct doesn’t make it the wrong choice. Just because the masses say it’s right doesn’t make it so. Hence the importance of logic and reason in decision making. Assess the situation, apply reason, make a decision. deal with the consequences.

  22. jacob

    18. Dec, 2010

    i think what jamie is saying is that bouldering ethics are quite subjective. some people are going to aggresively clean and landscape, others aren’t. some people are going to rename lower starts, other people won’t. one persons ethics is another persons joke. there’s not going to be a unified theory for bouldering, this in’t physics, but through providing a good example maybe we can help future first ascentionists to be more responsible. i, myself, have done some develpment that i was torn by…did i do too much? i wish i hadn’t killed that bush. or trampled that meadow. bouldering is not a ‘leave no trace’ sport. everything about it is destructive. the only tool we have in our belt to deal with the nature of this sport is to try to be responsible. or as jamie says, use a little logic and reason. there is no solution, people are going to be people. otherewise we’d have nothing to bitch about.

  23. B3

    20. Dec, 2010

    Lots of great comments, and as I am busy with climbing, writing the guidebook, reviewing new guidebooks that have come out for this site, and routesetting I am only going to respond to one of them.

    Sidepull

    Ayn Rand is one of the most interesting philosophers in my mind and her Morality and ethics come from the individual and the individuals ability to reason.
    Ethics, I think should come from logic and reason, not because the precedent has been set that whatever people have done in the past is ok. Slavery would be a good example when the majority does not make something right. Individuals should be the ones who decide. Someone thinking with reason and logic would never condone slavery.
    Ethics can be individual
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics

    “people don’t rename a problem for adding a few moves”.

    Yes they do, and I can list hundreds of examples. Like it or not you are clearly wrong on this point.

    “Please, go to UKbouldering or Mountain Project and look – you’ll see a lot of problems that have sit, traverse, dyno, variant all added to the same name.”

    Really? Here is what I found.

    http://mountainproject.com/v/texas/hueco_tanks/east_mountain/105812860
    Full Service, which is the sit start to Lip Service
    http://mountainproject.com/v/texas/hueco_tanks/north_mountain/105811197
    Shaken not Stirred which is the sit to Big Iron on His Hip
    I can’t find it, but The Ace is the sitstart to the Joker at Stanage in England. This is one of the most famous problems in England.
    thanks for providing the websites that provided evidence for my argument.

    According to your logic Crown of Aragorn is now Bettter Eat Your Wheaties Low Left Traverse, Shaken Not Stirred is now Big Iron on His Hip sit star, Dark Age is now See Spot Run Sit Start, Lochness Monsters is now Two Ton Tongue Sit Start, Canopener is now Right Hand Man Sit Start, Riddles in the Park would now actually become Riddles in the Dark Not From Where Daniel Started It (Which is Sometimes Referred To As Riddle Solved) But From Two Moves Lower.
    I disagree. It is awesome that we can differentiate between the stand and the sit. I think different names make it less confusing. Nalle didn’t rename Mote in the Eyes of God when he climbed the sit start, he named it Butterfinger. I don’t know what more I can say.

  24. Jill

    20. Dec, 2010

    Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is Rational Egoism. Don’t even go there..

  25. Jill

    20. Dec, 2010

    ..and ofcourse you also know that both The Ace and The Joker are FA by British legend Jerry Moffat

  26. Mark E

    20. Dec, 2010

    The debate is really more about language — specifically naming conventions — than about ethics. With anything that has to do with language, I think that it’s ultimately the linguistic community that determines meaning and assigns importance.

    This is borne out by the examples that Jamie provides above, although I think he draws the wrong conclusion from them.

    Certain ascents from lower starts get assigned a name by the FAist. Sometimes they stick and sometimes they don’t, and it’s the broader community that collectively makes that decision. Boone’s suggestion of Better Beat Your Sweeties didn’t gain much acceptance (it’s considered an obscure footnote) but Fred’s contribution Crown of Aragorn did gain acceptance and celebration as an independent line.

    Did Fred or Boone get to decide these things? No, the community did.

    Or, to take Jamie’s earlier hypothetical, adding a sit start to Midnight Lightening and calling it Dumb Grey Rock might gain acceptance in the community, or (more likely) it might be ignored as trivial or unworthy of consideration as an independent line. A diligent guidebook author might decide to include Dumb Grey Rock when giving the history of the problem, but if climbers decide to ignore the addition it will fade into history.

    So, in that sense, the proposition that the FAist is granted total authority to create names and problems clearly does not match the way things work. The FAist has an opportunity to suggest the name, but the climbing community must ratify it.

    Similar mechanics exist in literature and the arts. It’s not unusual for a writer or artist to give a work a name, or assign it a particular meaning, only to have that name or interpretation wrested away by the linguistic community. One of Renoir’s best known paintings is titled “Girl with a Watering Can,” but the original title Renoir gave the painting was reportedly “Boy With a Watering Can.” Oh well! The “girl” is now a “boy”.

  27. B3

    20. Dec, 2010

    Hmm. It’s my blog, I’ll go where ever I’d like. Which brings up an interesting point. It is my site, and I am always confused when people get upset that I write what I write. Am I not allowed to go where ever I’d like?
    Hmm. A legend of rock climbing, “renaming” his own problem? Perhaps I will write a post telling Moffat that his own problem, the Ace, should actually be called The Joker sit, and that he should spend more time on Mountain Project.com….

  28. seth

    20. Dec, 2010

    Jamie.

    I would like to apologize for this being the topic that draws the most attention of all of your post in the last 6 months.

    Out of all of the beautiful pics, updates on sends, locations of incredible new stuff, progress in Europe, sends by hot/strong ladies (Ang comes to mind), and a derth of history on the park, and Colorado bouldering in general, this what people choose to comment on. Too funny.

    I for one would like to thank you for all the time you put into this blog.

    Oh, and I enjoy long walks on the beach, sippin margaritas, chippin new lines, and bolting gear routes.

    Merry holidays and such.

  29. B3

    20. Dec, 2010

    excellent point Mark, thanks!
    And Seth thanks so much! Your comments are very greatly appreciated.

  30. B3

    20. Dec, 2010

    And it is unfortunate that this post has no super-ceded the attention that the last most commented post got, which was women in climbing. ah well…

  31. Peter

    21. Dec, 2010

    Zach mentioned something that, unfortunately, was brushed over. There seems to be a pseudo-ethic in some areas (not only the SE) that dictates that low starts should be named in keeping with their stand. Here are a few examples:

    Lip Service / Full Service
    The Ace / The Joker
    Riddles in the Park / Riddle Solved
    Esperanza / Desperanza
    Lochness Monster / Two Ton Tongue
    The Island / Big Island

    I’m not suggesting that you don’t have the right to name the problem whatever you like, but it seems like there is a precedent for going about this sort of routine (of course, there’s a precedent for adding “low” or renaming it altogether, ala Crown of Aragorn). Had I done this FA (which I didn’t) I would have named the problem “Barbie Girl” or “Barbie’s World,” thereby taking credit for my own accomplishment while tipping my hat to Ken, who, in fairness, came before me (in cases where this is impossible, I would just add sit, assiss, low, crouch, or whatever to the original name). An added benefit is that such names give the boulder a cohesion like the Gold Coast in the Red River Gorge. Jonathan Siegrest could have named his recent FA “insert title of most recent book he read,” (Wildwood is a JC Blake reference, is it not?) but settled on “24 Karats,” in keeping with the rest of the wall.

    And though this is not my blog, bouldering is not my thing, and I do not live in Colorado, the future of rock climbing is as much mine as it is yours. And what you write on this blog, and what you name your problems, helps shape that future, for better or for worse. I am not critiquing your decisions. I don’t believe that you have done anything outside the normal practice of [re]naming (though I do question whether or not there is a larger pattern similar to what Zach and I have mentioned to be discovered in the examples you give, and other examples of low starts around the world). I only ask that you think through your decisions and consider not only whether they are within the boundaries dictated by past actions, but whether or not there might be a way to help shape those boundaries into something better.

  32. cardboard_dog

    21. Dec, 2010

    I totally thought you guys were talking about Ken Gibson .. the OLD MAN.

  33. sidepull

    22. Dec, 2010

    Jamie,

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this post getting a lot of attention – it sparked a nerve, you invite feedback, this is an indicator of what the community is interested in. I think it might be interesting, for your own self-reflection, to count how many of these posts support your position. Even if it is a majority, it would be slight one and provide credence that the “ethic” you’re espousing is far from an agreed ethic, even among elite climbers.

    As much as I’m flattered that you replied to my response, I think you and I (and anyone else that wants to do a casual search) knows that you’ve cherry picked arguments to suit your needs rather than attempting to be at all comprehensive. That makes sense though, you’ve chosen a pretty untenable position so you’re left grasping at straws to prove your point. What is ironic, hilariously ironic, is that your claim that I provided evidence for your arguments is that many of the examples you’ve provided undermine yours. For example, Ayn Rand might espouse self-interest, but the point is that it’s collectively worthwhile. She’s not arguing that society works best when a few individuals exercise self-interest (indeed, if you’ve read the Fountainhead, you realize that has disastrous consequences), instead, she’s advocating that it’s a collective ideal. So you’re wrong on the philosophical point. Similarly, as Peter points out, the Ace and Joker, while named differently, follow a similar naming convention (just like all the variations on the Iron Man boulder in Bishop).

    At any rate, I clearly think you’re wrong, you clearly think you’re right. As you point out, this is your blog – a rather excellent climbing blog, likely the best – and you do have full authorship rights. But, you’ve also invited others to post and reflect on your ideas so you are asking for dissension. I would hope that that reflective practice, at times, might lead you to reconsider your opinion.

    For the majority of the threads, the ones which don’t illicit a stream of disagreement, just assume that we are all reading and nodding our heads in agreement and gratitude for your energy, images, and thoughtfulness.

    Happy Holidays and good luck with your guide book!

  34. Crafty

    23. Dec, 2010

    I’m still baffled that people are offended by the renaming of a new start to an established line, whether the new name is related to the original or not. Does it really matter? It’s a different climb, call it something different. I does nothing to obscure or change what the first asencionist did, and what he or she named his or her accomplishment.

    Let me say it again: renaming a sit start does nothing to the original problem and takes nothing away from that first ascensionist’s accomplishments.

  35. Peter

    23. Dec, 2010

    Crafty,
    You’re absolutely right: [re]naming does nothing to the original problem, and it takes nothing away from the first ascentionist’s accomplishment. At the same time, and this was my point, it does nothing FOR the original problem, nor does it in any way give credit TO the first ascentionist’s accomplishment. And my point (I know others were making different ones, and it may be those to which you are responding) was not, as I said earlier, that there is anything WRONG with giving a low start a new name, only that there MIGHT be a MORE right way to go about doing so. Both sides of the “debate” seemed to ignore this possibility and I felt like it might be beneficial to flesh out Zach’s point as a possible third alternative.
    Quite frankly, I feel like it’s “just climbing a bunch of rocks in the woods.” I’ve devoted the better part of the last twelve years of my life to climbing them, but I recognize that, to me, certain aspects of the game, like naming, just aren’t that important. Do I like it when the names on a boulder hold together? Yes, I find it clever and aesthetically pleasing. Do I think it’s worthwhile to tip your hat to the person who found the boulder, cleaned and climbed the stand? Yes. If you choose not to do so, am I offended? Absolutely not. I was making a suggestion, that is all.

  36. Daniel

    23. Dec, 2010

    The masses will ultimately decide what is right . . . if people think a new start warrants a new name, they will call it that. If the new start is retarded (like digging out the ground to add a new move to dreamtime), people won’t climb it, much less refer to it by a new name.

    Be careful when saying that the fist ascentionist gets to name it and that everyone else has to call it that forever . . . there are plenty of examples of people doing non-obvious stand starts because they weren’t strong enough to do an obvious lower start. In this case, the person with the strength and vision to climb the full line should get to name it if they want. The first ascentionist has a responsibility to respect the most full and obvious line, and to not claim an FA if they were too weak and skipped the hard part just so they could name the damn thing.

    If the stand start and sit start both make sense as problems, people will respect them as such. And quite frankly, who gives a shit if they have separate names. Your puppy isn’t going to die cause some gym rat added a sit start to your favorite local legend’s problem. And to people adding sit starts . . . maybe just go with a name that pays homage to the stand and skip the inevitable controversy.

  37. B3

    23. Dec, 2010

    Sidepull, you wroite

    “But the reality – the real ethic that is more common and has existed for a longer period of time – is that people don’t rename a problem for adding a few moves.”

    Yes they do. I can give hundreds of examples but again, Big Iron on His Hip, was named Shaken Not Stirred from the sit start. that contradicts your statement. Circadian Rhythm is another problem that was “renamed” after Ben Scott did the V9 stand start. I never made the claim that people don’t follow the theme from the FAist. They have the freedom to do so. I have done it myself.
    with my FA’s, such as

    What’s Left of The Dead Racoon
    Muddy Waters
    The Nickness Right
    Block Negative
    Do Not Name This Problem as Hard As They Come
    Unshackled Sit
    etc

    But I have also done the opposite, disregarding the name of the FA when doing a lower start (for example)

    Mastodon
    Wildwood
    The Vampire
    The Space Between Cars
    Glass and Silver
    etc

    So, again, I advocate that people have the freedom to name things whatever they’d like, if they add new and lower moves. Sometimes it’s appropriate to follow the theme, sometimes it’s not. That is for the FAist to decide. You can’t argue that people don’t name things differently than the FAist of the stand start. I did. I am person. So is Daniel Woods and Dave Graham and Fred Nicole and countless other climbers who have done so.

  38. sidepull

    23. Dec, 2010

    I think throwing out examples and psuedo-quantifying doesn’t do justice to either side of the argument. I am pretty firmly in the camp that Peter aptly described above. What I find even more interesting now is that sometimes you (Jamie) are and sometimes you aren’t. I’m not trying to be snarky with this next question, it’s asked out of pure curiosity and with the intent to better understand your position: from your perspective, what factors trigger when it’s appropriate and when it’s not appropriate to follow the theme?

  39. B3

    23. Dec, 2010

    It would be appropriate if the FAist felt the desire to
    do so. Perhaps if a good pun can be made it would
    be appropriate. The only rule that should exist is that they have the freedom to name it whatever they’d like. Again, you claimed that people don’t waver from the original name given and I gave examples when they do.

  40. Socrates Face

    25. Dec, 2010

    B3, BigA, may I corrupt this conversation and suggest that you are both in the right? Perhaps I am late in the conversation, but I would like to collate my own thoughts, if that’s reasonable.

    The FAist dictates not the ethics – but the best method of fulfilling those ethics, ethics that are absolute (FOR THE TIME PERIOD), but not formulaic…

    I think, and it is my just opinion, that the cleaning situation of an FA is (forgive my indulging of allegoric mathmatics) a function equation where ideally the “slope, aka rate of change, of a tangent line is zero.”

    This “change” has a gradient… In the outstanding outcome of a newly developed area, no trace is left yet for a flurry of footprints in the grains of sand and time… In a jungle-y area, only a smallish pile of massacred mosses and trampled bush detritus should littler the landing of a newly-born boulder.

    And at one of those “critical points,” found by deriving the truth with respect to time, the slope or “change” is infinite… stumps don’t grow back, fool.

    So how do we draw this inscrutable line between too much/too little cleaning?

    I only know that I know nothing.

    But Aristotle, let’s say, FAs a new piece that requires one to do the tango around a tree, which he enjoys sending au natural and establishes on 8a.BC as “Ficus”, v-something (for the sake of the story).

    And Plato (for his own esoteric reasons not having to do with his massive bulk not fitting between the tree and a hard place) comes along, chops this tree down, and later posts on 8a.BC, “the majority of 20-something boulderers in our day and age that have learned to read and chisel their thoughts for other people on REALLY BIG pieces of rock agree… that this tree is a pain in the ASS!!! esoterically, understand, yet my words are the words of the masses.”

    My thinking: Plato is in the wrong.

    If he isn’t physically capable of doing the problem, tough luck, tree stays. (Heard of “going soft”, Play-Doh?) Many a dwarf has stared at Spectre with greedy eyes, but the possibility of one of those unfortunates sending the V13 are about equal that of Demosthenes getting laid at the baths of Greece.

    Daniel, as a grain of sand is blown away by a slightly irritated zephyr, your belief will do the same. You think defacing a landing under a boulder problem will discourage boulderers from repeated the tainted FA-boulder? Oh… there it goes! Goodbye, grain of sand, we will miss ye.

  41. big poppa chosscrush

    05. Jan, 2011

    OMFG! ARE YOU SAYING THAT CIRCADIAN HAS A STAND START? YES YOU ARE!

    BLISSFUL DAY!

    WHAT ARE THE HOLDS OF THE ‘STAND’?

    WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL NAME?

    I MUST KNOW!

    ALL THE REST OF THIS THREAD HAS BECOME MEANINGLESS, ECLIPSED BY THE SHEER IMPORTANCE OF A NEW OLD STAND START IN THE 420s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111

    i know you bitches know i’m not kidding.

  42. Gabe Myers

    14. Feb, 2011

    Jamie, you are truly part of a new generation of boulderers that climbs only for grades and have zero appreciation for just climbing. Do you even climb problems if you don’t know the grade, or don’t think the grade will be high enough to feed your ego?

    This site is a manifestation of your giant ego, it’s so big theres’ a fucking satellite orbiting it.

Leave a Reply