Poudre Canyon

seth

10. Dec, 2010

you check out that other rig???

B3

10. Dec, 2010

It was too snowy. I am on the prowl like a lion looking for new boulders.

ClimbHighCO

10. Dec, 2010

Who knew there were so many unpopped cherries left in the Poudre! Looks like theres lots of Rippin’ and Tearin’ about to go down

tendon

10. Dec, 2010

This isn’t Kens problem?

B3

10. Dec, 2010

Ben, I think you were under the influence…. Ken climbed this from two moves in and called it V8. Typically overgraded, the stand start is only V7. We cleaned off so much loose stuff at the bottom, I saw Ken do the stand. Never did the sit. Just another classic passed over by the dazed and confused crowd,.,.

campusman

10. Dec, 2010

did he name it after the drink?
=P

sidepull

10. Dec, 2010

It seems like the rule being followed here is: even if there is a stand, if you add moves at the bottom it deserves a new name? I know that you’ve been discussing this for awhile but this post and the previous both have established problems given new names with a few moves tacked onto the bottom. Why not just use the original name and add sit at the end? So what if the FA didn’t have the vision to start on groveling holds or to knock of choss, they did have the vision to climb the meat of the line (not necessarily the hardest moves but likely the purest, most obvious moves that make up the bulk of the moves). Personally, I don’t think adding moves to the bottom necessitates a new name. Just add the sit, pat yourself on the back, and be done.

cj

10. Dec, 2010

@ sidepull , i totally agree in this case. Creating a contrived problem out of an existing line doesn’t constitute a name change. Ha, though i have not seen this problem, from reading the description, it seems like that’s the case. Good send B3, looks pretty awesome!

B3

11. Dec, 2010

What are you guys talking about? This is a sit start FA to an an old problem. If Fred Nicole is a legend for adding 3 moves into Better Eat Your Wheaties and calling it Crown of Aragorn then by all means I will add three moves into Ken’s Roof and name it Wildwood. And if that’s not reason enough I will happily and logically justify it.

Jay

11. Dec, 2010

I always thought the arete to the right could have a line on it too. It’s on kind of pink crystaly rock and would top out high up. The couple of lines to the left of this are the gems though.
FWIW: Wildwood could be climbed from a move or two lower- it would start on an obvious jug/ rail. All you need to do is move a few HUGE boulders. For you guys complaining about naming the lower start – go move the rocks, climb it from lower, and call it whatever you want.
Shoot me an email and I’ll put you on to some nice projects if you don’t mind hiking a bit (I know you don’t).

cj

11. Dec, 2010

But isn’t the SS to Better Eat Your Wheaties obvious and not contrived? I would think the First Ascentionist of B.E.Y.W. would have started sitting down if they had the capability of climbing The Crown of Aragorn. In that case I believe the less contrived start is from the SS. So in my opinion the Crown of Aragorn is the purest line. In the case of Wildwood, it sounds like you found a SS using non-obvious holds. Because it is more contrived, it should be dubbed the SS to the existing problem:) Just playing devils advocate “sheriff.” After all, i have not seen either of these problems in person.

Chris

11. Dec, 2010

To all who’ve said this problem is “contrived:” It’s a far more obvious start than “Ken’s problem.”

campusman

11. Dec, 2010

and again, there are no rules in climbing

only ethics

Beaudering

11. Dec, 2010

@Jay HAH that’s not gonna happen.

Choss

11. Dec, 2010

I think Fred Nicole is a legend for more than just adding a sit start to Crown of Aragorn, although I get your point.

And if you’re so “on the prowl like a lion looking for new boulders” why don’t you find some actual “new boulders” instead of adding two moves to an established problem and
spraying all about it. Good job figuring out two new moves though.

“Typically overgraded…….passed over by the dazed and confused crowd….pretentious much? And in the original post you don’t even give Ken credit for the original problem.
Nice.

sidepull

11. Dec, 2010

Let me start with a few caveats:

1) This is the only personal blog I post in because Jamie’s points are intelligent, well-reasoned, and based on good experience.

2) I’ve never met Jamie, but, based on his online persona he seems to be a passionate, generous person. Overall, I respect him a lot.

In sum, nothing I say is meant as a personal attack, just a discussion of ideas.

Given the caveats above, let me get to the meat: I strongly disagree with you and I think, based on your past posts, your logic here shows some inconsistencies. First off, I’m sure you can cite numerous examples of top climbers adding an extension (Realization), sit start (Lucid Dreaming), or some variant and providing a new name. So there is a high profile precedent for this, but, by and large, the long held standard has been to simply add “sit” “extension” “dyno” or “variation” to a problem. Look through any guidebook and you’ll see this trend far outpaces the few high profile examples you can muster. A huge reason for this is to recognize the history of the problem. You imply this very issue in your discussion of Paul’s ascent of “Bleagle.” Beyond preserving history, it makes logical sense: the meat of the line, the highest percentage of moves, are still the original line. Adding names because you added a move or two leads to very slippery slop. Suddenly, anyone that uses a new foothold, handhold, or body position has a right to name a problem something new. Often this isn’t due to vision or trying to be ground breaking, it’s just a matter of just playing to your strengths (tall people might prefer the dyno, short guys might have to use holds no one else uses). This logic would be completely ridiculous with routes, it shouldn’t be in the discussion with boulders either. Finally, and this is a slight return to the historicity of a climb, I think, beyond inflated grading, renaming problems is often viewed as the height of hubris. Top climbers only get away with it because the climbing media is loath to call them out but the forums light up every time it happens because people assume that history is being obscured to some sponsor can get a photo op of their athlete. I think this final point should really resonate with you since I think your upcoming guide book can serve as a point either a point of clarity or a point of division in the community and it would lean toward the latter if people get the sense that a lot of “FA, J. Emerson’s” are just contrivances of others’ problems. Note that I said, “viewed as the height of hubris.” I’m not saying Fred Nicole, Daniel Woods, or you are egotistical or prideful, but this trend provides people with cues that could readily lead to that conclusion.

As I said at the outset, I do really respect you. Judging by the slightly elevated emotion / defensiveness in your previous post – which seems odd for you – I doubt you’re willing to really consider the points I’m making. I’m hoping others will chime in to help you see there is a larger consensus.

Sebastian

11. Dec, 2010

To start off, I’ll say that I’ve never done an FA (maybe one?) and I don’t care to, so I have no vested interest either way in this argument. That said, I don’t understand re-naming a sit start. Your appeal to authority by citing a Fred Nicole precedent isn’t a logical argument so maybe you can provide a logical justification. It seems to me that any free climb up a boulder should be enough for someone to establish the name of a climb. Anything else is a variation on that. That seems to be the only standard that doesn’t leave the door open for people to do a slightly different version and thus arbitrarily renaming a problem. Having a standard in which starting lower results in renaming a problem leaves the door open for too many contrived versions, all with different names. Out of simplicity, it makes sense to just call something by it’s original name followed by “low” or “SDS”. Re-naming something when you’ve started lower is just going to cause confusion and will potentially invalidate the original ascensionist’s name when people start calling he original “Wildwood stand”. I’m interested to hear your argument for renaming.

B3

12. Dec, 2010

Woah, ok. Since I am asked to justify my logic again, I will. Anytime someone adds something (lower moves) to a climb, they have the right to rename it. There is nothing that says they have to stick with the original name, although that does happen. There are however many examples when it doesn’t. I’ll list the stand, then the sit.
A) Boogalagga-Big Paw FA Dave Graham
B) Rastman Vibrations-Lucid Dreaming FA Paul Robinson
C) Right Hand Man-Canopener FA Will Lemaire
D) The Dagger-The Story of Two Worlds FA Dave Graham
E) Better Eat Your Wheaties-Crown of Aragorn FA Fred Nicole
F) Flake Magnate-Diaphanous Sea FA Fred Nicole
G) Sign of the Cross-Chblanke FA Fred Nicole
H) Two Ton Tongue-The Lochness Monster-FA Daniel Woods
I) Silverback-Chrome FA Seth Allred

I will reiterate. The difficulty is irrelevant, only that the new climb starts in a different and lower place.
I have never heard anyone of these climbers criticized for renaming these lines, because it is an accepted practice. Interestingly enough, Seth had one of his problems renamed (Two Ton Tongue) then went on to name someone elses problem (Silverback).
Of course there are many examples that go the other way as well, but it seems that there has never been any question that this is acceptable (unitl I brought it up here)
In this instance, Ken didn’t even name the 2 move problem, and it had become known as Ken’s Roof. As far as I know, I had the second ascent in 8 years. If any of you ever get a chance to check out the problem, it would be hard to disagree that what I have done hasn’t completed the line. And again, I don’t think there is any reason to not name the line. If a climber adds a lower start, then they are climbing something additional and different, and they have the right to rename it whatever they’d like. The community will decide if the problem is worthwhile or not.
I don’t think what I am advocating is that new body positions, or foot holds deserve a renaming. I am advocating that if someone starts lower, then they have every right to rename the problem. My problem Finite Endeavours was named The Power of Ten by Ty Landman from lower holds and I think it’s great. As long as there is someway to distinguish between the lines.
Another interesting example is Chris Schulte’s Authentic Battle Damage. Chris did a stand start called ABD stand, but the full line is called ABD. On 8a, a number of climbers refer to the stand start (which is V8 or so) as ABD. This is far easier than the sit start, which is V12 or so. Here, having similar name creates a lot of confusion. I wish the stand didn’t have the same name as the sit.
Finally, my jabs at Ben were in jest. Ben is and has been a friend since I moved to Colorado 8 years ago. I have many good friends that read this site, and sometimes I just like to talk smack with my friends. That’s all that was. Ben and I have since emailed privately. I know my tone can be serious most of the time, but I love having fun with my friends, more than almost anything.

B3

12. Dec, 2010

Also, no one has forgotten about Ken’s Roof. It is still a climb and anyone is welcome to come try it. By adding a sit start I am not erasing what was done e.g. Sign of the Cross. I think it is inappropriate to start higher than where the FAist started, because you are taking away from their achievement (if you claim that you have done the same) because you are doing less then what they did.

B3

12. Dec, 2010

Finally, I found it hilarious that I am critiszied for not finding new boulders. Let’s not forget who told Dave about Lincoln Lake….

B3

12. Dec, 2010

Also, I will happily debate ethics, morals, personal preferences, stand starts, sit starts, rock quality, grades, etc, but I will not post anonymous personal attacks against me and I will not defend them.

campusman

12. Dec, 2010

Both sides of the spectrum on naming a new line/problem/sequence/climb without reference to the already established problem within the new climb-

There are no rules so not giving reference to the older climb within is to be considered unrulish, not unethical.

There is two things being done within the community…
Some climbers like to completely rename the new lines they do, and some climbers like to rename the new line based on the old line with a low or sit, or something to deal with the old climb..for example- Better Name Your New Climb Based On The Old Or You Didnt Eat Your Wheeties V16.

(Including the author of the best bouldering site in the world) Other climbers say its a new climb, name it something new… This has shown to be the case in other circumstances too like at Hueco Tanks.

We can all agree that there are no rules.
As climbers we do what we want, not what everyone else wants us to do.

Preach off

campusman

12. Dec, 2010

BOTH SIDES of the spectrum on naming a new line/problem/sequence/climb without reference to the already established climb within the new climb-
first-
There are no rules so not giving reference to the older climb within is to be considered unrulish, not unethical.

There is two things being done within the community…
Some climbers like to completely rename the new lines they do, and some climbers like to rename the new line based on the old line with a low or sit, or something to deal with the old climb..for example- Better Name Your New Climb Based On The Old Or You Didnt Eat Your Wheeties V16.

As climbers we do what we want, not what some people, or even everyone thinks we should do.

Jill

12. Dec, 2010

Jeez.. what’s wrong dude..you gots to chill.
Renaming problems after adding a SDS is a sensative subject.. remember the Bleagle controversy. Pretty harsh comments on other well known climbers (PaulR a.o.) have been posted on your blog. So, maybe no reason to flip out if your own achievements get criticized in the same way.

Most of us enjoy reading this blog, otherwhise we wouldn’t take the time to comment.

B3

12. Dec, 2010

@Jill
Paul renamed a problem that was already established from a sitdown start. His reason for renaming it was that it broke. I named a newly established problem. My reason for naming it is that I added new moves. See the difference?

I am not upset at all. You are assuming a tone that doesn’t exist. I thought I was just answering the questions. Where did I “flip out”?

I got some pretty hateful responses which I simply do not care to deal with. I put myself out there so that we can all discuss these things and it is disappointing when people just write personal slander. Critiquing Paul’s ascent is not personal slander, calling me an @#$@#hole is, and that is why I didn’t post some of the comments.

campusman

12. Dec, 2010

/|\
I
I
I
only this person is awesome

Noob

12. Dec, 2010

If I have the first ascent to a climb I get to name it whatever I want right?

I thought someone told me that?

Why is this such an issue?

Why are people calling you an asshole?

DON P

12. Dec, 2010

I agree with CHOSS – you might get some slander if you slander the whole FoCo scene by calling us “the dazed and confused crowd.”

.. and we’re still upset by the whole Product sds rename.

Sebastian

12. Dec, 2010

Just because there are noteworthy examples doesn’t make it right. If we are debating the “ethics” of the matter, then defend your position using a logical argument. What I’ve seen so far is arguing by appeal to authority, which is not a sound argument.

You say: “I have never heard anyone of these climbers criticized for renaming these lines, because it is an accepted practice.”

Accepted practice isn’t always justified by sound arguments. I thought you were interested in questioning and critiquing current practice and holding yourself up to the highest standards. All I’m seeing is ego- or sponsor-driven need to name something and then using other examples of a certain practice to justify it. I’m still curious as to your logical justifications for renaming a line that has already been sent.

PJ

13. Dec, 2010

Does this proposition suggest that one should aggressively clean a boulder (remove dab rocks, remove dirt, dig down, etc.)? Tons and tons of boulders now have “lower” starts simply due to use over time. Should/could one rename all of them? As an avid FAist, how should I go about bouldering? I tend to find boulders, do some cleaning, and send the most obvious lines, from the lowest start. I’ve come back to many a boulder to find that a “new” lower start is now possible because someone removed a foot of dirt and “cleaned” a new lower hold. I can imagine many coming-to-the-sport boulderers looking to make their name via this proposition.

cardboard dog

13. Dec, 2010

In a few more years Ken will be so old he probably won’t even remember climbing it the first place. FTW.

big poppa chosscrush

13. Dec, 2010

bitchedy bitches, know that i’m psyched to shits on this wildwood piece when i get a golden ticket to do so.

any oldschool tard who does not name a line is asking for their rig to be named in a way totally different than the unnamed rig they neglected to name a name, you dig?

also know that all of your jabber is foolish and the only opinions that matter are those of bennett resonating through the canyon with a bellowing voice in the most predictable, yet classic namecalling mockery of jemerface.

by pure experience and intutition, i know exactly what bennett was saying and how he was saying it whenever he read this post. if you do not, your life is lesser.

wait, what?

big poppa chosscrush

13. Dec, 2010

dear potential FAists: if you do not wish your rigs to have OBVIOUS stand starts created after your v-hard bullshit puke start, please do it from the stand first.

otherwise, please expected to be set on fire in your sleep and for your otherwise socialist and liberal ideals to be categorically dismissed.

love,
saturated in beer again

bigpoppa chosscrush

13. Dec, 2010

i just turned into campusmang like in being john malkovitch. it was……

B3

13. Dec, 2010

@Sebastion You wrote:

Just because there are noteworthy examples doesn’t make it right. If we are debating the “ethics” of the matter, then defend your position using a logical argument. What I’ve seen so far is arguing by appeal to authority, which is not a sound argument.
You say: “I have never heard anyone of these climbers criticized for renaming these lines, because it is an accepted practice.”
Accepted practice isn’t always justified by sound arguments. I thought you were interested in questioning and critiquing current practice and holding yourself up to the highest standards.

All I’m seeing is ego- or sponsor-driven need to name something and then using other examples of a certain practice to justify it. I’m still curious as to your logical justifications for renaming a line that has already been sent.

I agree that noteworthy examples do not justify it. I will happily justify it. If you’ve added new moves, then you have earned the right to add a new name. You should have the freedom to name (not rename) but name, the new set of moves (or more specifically and accurately, the new starting holds) whatever you’d like. Where is that logically inconsistent?

The last thing my sponsors care about is the first ascent of a V10 in Poudre Canyon. I guess if you think this is ego driven that’s your opinion, but I am trying to act consistently within my argument, because I think it is right,

B3

13. Dec, 2010

@DON P Again, I was talking smack at Ben. Trying to have some lighthearted fun, that for some reason has not been taken as such. I didn’t rename the Product. I added 6 moves and named the lower start Mastodon. If it so upsets, then don’t bother climbing on it.

B3

13. Dec, 2010

Shambo!!!! Thanks for commenting. Never in a million years would I guess you were coming to the site. Good to hear from you. Def. psyched to get out and see some new stuff. We’ve been having a blast getting out lately.

Beaudering

13. Dec, 2010

yeah maybe after 9/11, when everybody got all sensitive…

nice JJ!

bigpoppa chosscrush

14. Dec, 2010

on balance with the concept of perpetually adding lower stupider moves to good lines, please consider that the herd mentality will eventually dismiss all efforts to add lower starts and establish new names.

for instance, if someone trys to make a name for him or herself by adding two dumpy awkward moves to a classic line over and over, 1) the lower starts will not be repeated or spoken of, and/or 2) if spoken of, it will be to illustrate that the FAist in in fact a moroosh (moron/doosh).

the herd giveth and the herd taketh away.

seth

14. Dec, 2010

How bout this…. everyone go rock climb, have fun, and stop givin a rat’s ass bout what and how other people are doing things. Jemeron created this blog for himself, his crew, family, etc. If you don’t like his views that’s fine, create your own blog and preach away. I personally enjoy reading about the ongoings of chosslorado, and Jamie’s explorations.

Now get back out there Jemerson and check out those rigs, I’m itchin for Colorado winter pics.

Michael Rathke

14. Dec, 2010

If you get an FA you can name it whatever you want.
(end of discussion)

PS
campusman is banned!

sidepull

14. Dec, 2010

I don’t think this: “If you’ve added new moves, then you have earned the right to add a new name.” is any more of a logical justification than “If the bulk of the climb has been climbed and named, then all you are adding is a variant and it should be named as such.”

In fact, you logic does break down. You later say that you are not naming the problem per se but “the new set of moves (or more specifically and accurately, the new starting holds).” But the reality is that you are only renaming a problem based on a few new moves which gets back to my point that this reasoning opens the door to all sorts of stupidity: new moves are what? body positions? I used this jib? I start with my hands crossed? It’s a very slippery slope you’re advocating and I don’t see any upside except for the FAist. In contrast, it just sews confusion in the community. In contrast, it’s much easier for people to say, “yeah, here’s the main line, that’s the sit, and here’s the dyno variation and this top out variation.” At least here the person is being honest that it’s really just mild variations on a theme rather than wholesale new problems.

Again, I think referring to the precidents you cited is pretty weak since, if I wanted to dive through a guidebook, I’d find far more evidence of the alternative thinking.

Finally, why didn’t Paul rename From Dirt Grow Flowers after doing the “Left Variant”?

colin

14. Dec, 2010

the thing is…adding a sit start and re-naming the problem could be completing the true line, or it could be the highest form of ego-driven bouldering dorkery. Having not seen the line, I’ll just reserve judgment.

A_W

14. Dec, 2010

So does this mean I can add a sit start to Supercrack or Castleton or The Naked Edge or any other established route and call it a first ascent? Give it a new name? I don’t think that would fly, why is bouldering different? Jamie, I disagree that you have the right to name the new moves; it is the route, the rock, that is given a name not the movement. If it was the new moves that were named we would be back to the new foothold/beta argument and we have already decided that that does not constitute a new name.

I really am not trying to take away what you have done, for which I have incredible respect, I just feel that the masses, not the elite, should be making these ethical decisions. Bouldering is convoluted enough as it is, lets leave the naming system simple.

Alex Whitman

Mike B

15. Dec, 2010

JJ-you are a very funny man.

@Sebastian, about the “logical argument” point. I think what “Sherrif John Brown” is trying to state here and correct me if I am wrong JE, is that the time that it takes to 1) clean, remove choss, fix a landing and prepare a climb to be done from a lower start 2) figure out all the moves to do it in the most efficient manner possible as to not fall off the last hard moves over and over 3) and the general commitment level that it takes to go out day after day and climb is the logical argument.

I know that some would say you should go out and climb “for the fun, and to be connected with the rock.” I for one go to test how my training of late has paid off, and most importantly to SEND. I dont have enough time to go out and fail to send all the time, although some of my best days of climbing in the sense of enjoyable were accompanied by no sending. The amount of work that it does take to establish a boulder problem, albeit small in comparison to routes, still warrants some sort of reward, or motivation to do so. In the case of adding a sit start to an existing climb the tangible reward is the naming of said climb.

without that small reward there would likely be much less in terms of development. obviously at some scale there is a sponsor and financial aspect for people to go and want to develop areas to meet obligations for sponsors. that is a necessary animal in the realm of rock climbing today. it would be like asking someone to go to work “just for fun” and not offer any sort of compensation for them to make it worthwhile.

I think that we all gotta love Jamie for how fun he is to climb with and how perpetually psyched he is. I know that his psyche would be more than welcome in Idaho, and if people in the deceivingly small community of climbers don’t relax just a bit, we all might end up as estranged as Mr. JJ( Just kidding counselor)

slabdyno

16. Dec, 2010

when are they coming out with the rule book? y’all need one so you can discuss climbing instead of all this boring insignificant shit. this is so old. like way past 30.

B3

16. Dec, 2010

I am not “renaming” anything. I am not naming movement. If you think this is my argument then please reread what I have written. I am naming a different (and lower) set of starting holds. It only provides further clarification of what has been done. I don’t think bouldering ethics apply to routes. Someone can add a sit start to Midnight Lightning and call is Dumb Grey Rock if they should choose. This does not eliminate Midnight Lightning. And if someone were interested they could climb Dumb Grey Rock.
Why do the masses earn the right to dictate ethics? I think the ones putting up the first ascents should.

Sebastian

16. Dec, 2010

I see the argument. I guess this is just a situation where I identify more with the humble approach of just saying that you got the FA of the SDS of ‘X’ problem. I wonder if people tend to add a new name to a SDS more often when the higher start isn’t of very high quality or a well known problem I’m thinking of the example of the Mandala.

bigpoppa chosscrush

16. Dec, 2010

someone can certainly sit start supercrack and everest and give them new names like: “blissfully striking monotony assis” and “alpine trash cache” or “japanese trafficjam”… but due to the general subjective dismissal of the efforts, these sit starts would be considered a joke.

i think that even if the rule book would side with jemerbish and say the FAist gets to call the shots and that new moves = namable ascent, the herd will be the jury of peers to determine whether the ‘ascent’ is effortworthy and legitimate.

i will use the FAist of ‘animal’ as an example. marcelo did what he called ‘feisty’ sitting from a separated block. why? omg so invalid? you may think… well, it was his vision, dicated by FUN. and fun was had. in reality, once he matched hands on the undercling, he pulled feet to the wall and climbed the line “properly.” therefore, even if his separate block sitting start is invalidated by the herd (and yes, i balked at it too), he did the FA starting on the underclings, matched, feet on the proper wall.

however, because of the story of his start, people ignored this effort and focused on daniel’s start which is essentially the same, but with one left hand lower on the wall on a hold that for me, didn’t really require really pulling on…. it was just a thought of a lower start, in my opinion, while the real horsepower was still coming from the right hand on the obvious hold.

so, daniel did it and affixed a higher grade… which was probably justified by the way his sequence made a climber climb to avoid the dab block…. and his girlfriend at the time named it truly scrumptious….

while the herd accepted his ascent as valid above that of marcelo’s despite the slim difference (really just a beta difference, for those pushing the name-moves argument), they rightly felt that truly scrumptious was not daniel’s name, it was laura’s name, and was incredibly awful and should be ignored in favor of the SPRAYPAINT THAT SAYS ANIMAL on the rock.

again, i humbly submit: the herd giveth, the herd taketh away.

so, if the FAist gets to name a climb, animal is FEISTY, and i would argue that what is now called animal is really only one-half of a set-up move different, though a very difficult one based on the foot positioning that is substantially different.

now, after i wasted my life on this jabber i would like to ask the herd if they have any pictures of criz’s sister to post here so we can talk about her again like the good ol’ days on b.com.

or maybe a new topic: if you took all the climbers’ age-midget children (i.e. 3 – 9 yrs) and put them in THUNDARDOME, which would emerge?

bigpoppa chosscrush

16. Dec, 2010

and finally, like van morrison, i’m going to get down to what’s really wrong…

it has been hinted at but not said plainly: the issue with re-naming lower starts or variations is that it hurts the feelings of the FAist of the higher/differenter line. boohoo.

adding a couple moves and changing the name entirely is a petty form of bouldering imperialism. OMG EFF U ANCIENT INDIANS THIS PLACE IS AMERIKA NOW!!! kinda stuff.

the herd believes it to be much more acceptable when added moves are given a name that gives symbolic credit to the higher FAists name. adding “sds” or “low” is the easiest, but most boring version. naming the variant/lower start a pun, or spin-off from the original name also tends to be well received. however, totally changing the name rarely goes over well unless it is SIKK HARD and/or a cooler name.

in jamie’s case with wildwood, i would argue that it would have been most respectable for him to name his line something similar to the higher line’s name, BUT WAIT! OH YEAH, the original line was NOT NAMED (gosh!). “ken’s roof” is not a name. it is a description in the absence of a name. kinda like “northeastern arete”. DUH.

ken did not name the line. it was given a descriptive name. so, jamie’s name is the first true name. ken’s roof shoudl be called wildwood stand…. or at this point, childwood. send your funeral flowers for the non-name of “ken’s roof” and write your epilogues.

now, for mastadon… little more imperialism in that case. but if you want to cast your vote, then all you have to do is send “the product” and post photos, videos, and hatespray.spew entries. the herd ‘is’ the popular vote. none of this electoral college crap.

vote well, my friends.