The Mandala

Posted on 02. Feb, 2011 by B3 in News

Last week Alex Johnson climbed the second female ascent of The Mandala V12, in Bishop, CA. Wills Young (Bishop Bouldering guidebook author) broke the story on his Bishop Bouldering Blog, (an excellent source for information on some of the world’s better bouldering) and brought up an interesting point. Johnson and many other ascentionists of the problem (including Brion Voges who flashed it) started differently than first ascentionist Chris Sharma. Young didn’t report Voges’ flash because he felt it was somehow disrespectful towards Sharma’s original effort. I would speculate that Wills’ frustration comes from the feeling that climbers are climbing less than what Chris originally climbed, yet were claiming to do the same. Here is what Wills wrote about it previously:

“It is worth pointing out, for the purists out there, that many people are now starting The Mandala by beginning with their right hand in the undercling and their left on the crimp above (as you would arrive from the above-mentioned version of the sit), though doing so requires a big boost up, and is not the original problem–which begins with the right hand on the crimp as needed when stepping off the ground. It is strange to see 6-foot-plus climbers standing on a huge stack of pads to bring the starting holds down to waist level, rather than showing respect and doing all the moves of the climb (as Sharma did originally) before claiming an ascent.”

and also his subsequent response, with some excellent background information on the problem.

I maintain that to repeat a climb, the climber should start where the first ascentionist did. Because many now start as Alex did, should we, as a community, decide this be a minor footnote, or perhaps decide that it shouldn’t even be discussed at all? Should the masses have the right to change the start of one of the most iconic problems in America? Is there some implicit sexism in bringing this to attention now, or is it appropriate because Alex is such a talented climber? I realize this has been discussed many times at this site, however it continues to play a part in the game we play and it continues to be an unresolved issue.

Finally, here is video of Lisa Rands climbing the line, from Chris’ original start, uncut. Thoughts?

63 Responses to “The Mandala”

Anthony

02. Feb, 2011

Jamie,
I actually agree with you on this point. I am not a finger-pointer, but Chris claimed the FA so if those start holds exist that is where one should start. However, if for some reason those holds have broken and a new start has been established then so be it. Perhaps only iconic lines like this will ever be called into question…consider if Midnight Lighting broke and alternate approaches appeared. More importantly than the Mandala the worst travesties have occured with those who “sent” the Buttermilker. Stand-starts, squat-starts, sit-starts 1 move in, all after the fact that the first ascentionist (Chris) climbed it from an obvious sit, he also repeated the same sit in the summer last year. But, who is to say what is fair in a sport where we get to color outside the lines
Paul

02. Feb, 2011

To some extent this issue is linked to the question of which is more important, the climb or the climber. If it’s the climber than where the FA started has increased importance. If the climb is more important, its easy to see how a climb can evolve if the community decides it makes sense based on the line.
B3

02. Feb, 2011

The Buttermilker is an interesting case, because A) It is not a very good problem and B) It broke, and was thought not to be climbable from Chris’ original start. I think it was Tony Lamiche who climbed it from the underclings, and it seemed for a while that this was the only place it could be climbed from. Tim Clifford went back and climbed it from Sharma’s original start, however the guidebook states that the stand is a problem in it’s own right. Confusing to say the least. In this instance (The Buttermilker), it’s difficult to determine what is appropriate and what is not. This seems different than my argument for the Mandala, and again, since I have climbed the Buttermilker Stand, as it were, it seems hard not to read this as some attempt (again) to invalidate my climbing, and again, that has nothing to do with this discussion.
michael rathke

02. Feb, 2011

chris did two things differently from what people do now

the start
& daves way out right- side pull and bust right(skipping the double gaston method)

chrises way is no longer doable because one of the gastons has broken
B3

02. Feb, 2011

Paul, it seems subjective to determine whether or not a problem falls under the climb or climber category, which doesn’t seem to clear any of the issue up.
B3

02. Feb, 2011

I would also like to add that “the masses” almost never start lower than the FAist.
Alex

02. Feb, 2011

I tend to think that a problem belongs to the climbing community as a whole, not the first ascensionist. For instance, if the first climbs it one way at a certain difficulty, but someone comes along later and finds new beta that makes it easier, the grade should be adjusted to reflect the fact that the climb is actually easier than originally thought. The climb has evolved with the newfound knowledge of the community.
Anthony

02. Feb, 2011

Jamie,
I did not know you climbed the Buttermilker. I do not swim in the Colorado pool, so let’s get that straight. As for the argument it is the same as Chris did do it from the far left sit originally, Wills even added this commentary to his blog stating this. Chris also repeated the line last summer from the same spot he originally sent it, so what does that say as to the first ascentionists views? You seem to be over looking this question because you think someone is attempting to discredit you or because you do not like the problem. Lets keep it civil. I am asking about the ethics of the idea not about your personal climbing feats. The question I posed is in fact in-line with the above reason you posted this article. Perhaps Toni Lamiche found the undercling version more to his liking, however, that does not make what he did viable if we follow the logic you are using.
Davin

02. Feb, 2011

Starting holds are starting holds. Especially if the climber who did the first ascent used those holds. Sequences after the original start change all the time and that is part of finding ones way up a problem. I would think that the majority of climbers would agree on a singular start, but again a gray area has emerged.

It does bring up a question of personal ethics and honesty as well as that of the community.

Anyway, my vote is to stick with the original start. My definition of a problem is very much based on where it starts. Different starts usually get different names. Similar to the sit start debate.
Paul

02. Feb, 2011

My point wasn’t as must to suggest a test to determine where a problem should start. I’m trying to explain whats involved with the two sides of the debate, and to help explain why people disagree.

However, if people DID agree on which is more important, you could use that as a guideline and it would’t be a issue of subjectivity/objectivity. If we decided that its more important to do what the FAist did, then we would just do that… The decision itself would actually be inter-subjective (an agreement between climbers), which seems to be what we want. If your looking for objectivity, I guess I don’t really understand what that would mean in this context. Objective is the way things actually are rather than how we perceive them, and this seems to be a matter of preference or what we think is better way to do something. A matter of coming to an agreement.
B3

02. Feb, 2011

Anthony, fair enough. I’m sorry if I seemed on edge a bit in my response, I am just a bit frustrated with previous comments I have gotten here. Apologies for grouping yours with theirs.
If a problem breaks, and the starting hold is gone, I see no reason why it shouldn’t be climbed again from the lowest possible holds. And there should be some differentiation that it would be The Buttermilker Stand, and not The Buttermilker, that was climbed.
If the masses are allowed to start a problem where ever they’d like, then it seems to open the door to people starting three, four, five moves in because they feel the FAist start was awkward, or wierd, etc. And why then am I not allowed to come along and start three moves higher than where they start, because I think their start is awkward? Starting where the FAist starts eliminates all of this.
Andy

03. Feb, 2011

I find it kind of unacceptable for a sponsored (pro) climber and the media to bring attention to a climb that wasn’t completed the way it should. It is a amazing achievement what Alex did, however it is not the Mandala.

Thousands of problems are climbed in poor style by climbers (starting on different holds, not establishing themselves on the rock before moving, stacking pads, etc), however there is a major difference between a “Pro” climber and everyone else.

One would hope that the “Pro” would adhere to a higher level of ethics then the average climber.
BigA

03. Feb, 2011

Just because a guidebook prints the information unfortunately does not imply accuarcy or legitamacy. Prime example being Bob Horan’s guide to RMNP bouldering

@ alex: the case of the Mandala is unique and does not apply to what you have stated because the new “beta” that has evolved is to stack pads at the start and skip a portion of the original problem. To clarify though, I agree with what you have said to some extent.

In any case, assuming people have your tick list memorized and are using that knowledge to undermine your arguments is…uh, lame. Seriously. Not everyone trolls 8a all day. Anthony brings up a valid point with the buttermilker in my opinion or at least adds layers to the argument. Should there be such a thing as the buttermilker stand? if yes, then we also need to have a “mandala” (from chris’ original start) and a “mandala with pad stack”

At the end of the day, as long as people are HONEST with their ascents, I think that is what matters most. Jamie, if you feel that the Buttermilker Stand is legit, cool; you were honest in stating you did the stand (undercling start) If Voges says he flashed the Mandala, he should say he flashed it from the “pad stack” start. Whether or not either of those starts is legit is a matter of personal opinion. Since this is a forum where expressing personal opinion is encouraged, I say pad stacking to start (especially when you are skipping OG moves) is lame as hell. With a big enough pad stack, people could reach the LIP. Where would the line be drawn?
B3

03. Feb, 2011

What is lame Salo is that was what was happening and I have had to defend myself. Anyways, I agree, honesty with what they are doing is very important.
I think the difference between the Mandala and the buttermilker is that the starting hold of the Buttermilker broke, and many thought it was unclimbable. As far as I know the start of the Mandala is unchanged. (correct me if I am wrong) So Lamiche climbed the Buttermilker (after the break) from the lowest place he could. Perhaps when Clifford went back and reclimbed it from Sharma’s start it should nullify Lamiche’s “problem” Again, this is a fairly unique situation and I think a bit more grey. I think, like you said, Andy, it should go without saying that in reporting ascents, honesty is the best policy.
B3

03. Feb, 2011

Paul, for example, it is more objective to say that Chris Sharma started at point A and B. The Mandala is defined as such. Letting each subsequent ascentionist decide allows for people to climb less than what they say they’ve climbed and call it the same thing. I think climbing and climbers are better when they do what they say they’ve done. And how do we understand what that is? By allowing the FAist to earn the right to define their problem with a name, a start and a finish.
michael rathke

03. Feb, 2011

its okay if someone starts dougs roof in a different way than the fa’ist…its okay if they pull the crux out right and go to the horn also…dont matter if they campus to the horn either..skip the hold before the cookie, skip the cookie, put one hand on the roof flake, put a blind fold on or no matching..its all on
Paul

03. Feb, 2011

Obviously where Chris started is an objective fact, that isn’t what is being discussed. To use your example, Chris did the Mandala a certain way and that defines it. It is however, possible to redefine a boulder problem, and thats actually what has happened in this case (for better or worse).

I’m trying to say that there are good reasons to hold to a strict definition, and there are good reasons to allow for a malleable definition. In this case you might say, among other things, that you trade off respect for what Chris did, with what the community has decided makes a better climb (ie. climber vs climb from my first post).

I specifically said “among other things” (and “to some extant” in my first post), because I realize there are other factors such as people wanting to do what is easier; but I am trying to keep a narrow scope, simply to get at something that I think people often overlook in this debate. Maybe it helps to phrase it this way: Is what Chris did the Mandala, or by doing the line first, he simply had the honor of naming it?
Filipio

03. Feb, 2011

What I still don’t get is the entire argument that a climb ONLY starts on handholds A and B. Why not also feet? We use our feet just as much, and they can influence the difficulty of a climb just as much as well. You don’t see track and field athletes only worried about their hands. To start properly, you must have BOTH your feet and hands behind the line. If we are going to make up a rule about where to start, and how exactly, then why not the feet? From what I can gather, this site seems to argue for starting on the FAs exact handholds A and B, in the same way they did (left on A and right on B). However, from there up it is not necessary to use the exact same holds or in the exact same way? That seems arbitrary. If you must climb the route exactly as the FA did to say you did it, then it should be starting hand and footholds, exact holds up the problem, and exact same topout. Anything else is not the same problem as the FA. At least by this logic. So I don’t get the mandatory same starting handholds, but not anything else?
BigA

03. Feb, 2011

Absolutely. That is super lame too.
I agree, there is definitely a difference in the two problems. I think the only point I disagree with you on is that Lamiche actually climbed something new. I don’t think he did because the START hold broke, not anything higher. With that being the case, Sharma had technically already done the start from the underclings by linking into from the sit on the FA. But in any case, if the original start is deemed unclimbable, then the lowest possible start I guess would be the next best thing..

Another Bishop problem for example: In ’98 or ’99, there was a hard SDS at the Happies that climbed into Rave and was graded V9. I think it was called “You make me want to wear dresses” FA Vic Copeland. Anyway, anyone who has been to this boulder will tell you that this does not exist anymore. The start hold and everything near it has ripped clean off (surprising on such solid rock I know). This initiates more gray area: dubious rock. How many times has Acid Wash crumbled and became easier or harder? Who did it after pieces broke? Do we really care at all?? I think the Rave low start is interesting and should be noted as historical in a guidebook, but I dont need to know of every subsequent ascentionist of any problem that crumbles and erodes over the years

SIDENOTE AIMED AT SLABDYNO: There are two problems here in the gunks: The first involves an edge that may or may not break. The second starts nearby and climbs very near the first. IF the edge breaks on problem one, it will have to be finished on problem two. With me so far? OK. So in order to preserve a critical FA, SLABDYNO climbed the linkup eliminating the suspect edge so if and when it did break, he could claim this line as well. Legit or no? if the edge breaks, did SLAB still get the FA?? In my opinion yes, and this is why I feel Sharma has the FA of the Buttermilker Stand and Sit
Mojo

03. Feb, 2011

Here’s something to think about:

Say you do a problem like the mandala starting from different holds than the first ascentionist. Maybe you thought the start was awkward, or you thought a different starting hold was more logical, whatever. You don’t want to take credit for doing the same problem . . . but what do you call it? What do you put on your 8a scorecard (if that’s your thing)? If you name it something else, you are going to get just as much shit for naming a slight variation to a problem as you would for starting from the wrong holds. Should people call it “The Mandala but i can’t reach the high crimp and find it awkward to pull up into so i started off a rock and two pads”?

I guess what you decide to call it is relatively unimportant . . . but if you call it something other than The Mandala, you are going to get shit as well. I would imagine that people want to give Chris credit for the FA of the LINE, even if they don’t start in the exact same place. Kind of a lose-lose scenario.

The Mandala high start . . . yeah, let’s go with that . . .
Ian CB

03. Feb, 2011

B milker from the stand, matched in underclings is a solid 12, the sit is 13. The mandala is a bit more complicated. If you want to do it from the sit the best way build up to that is by doing it the new way (the way alex did it). The b milker in my opinion is one of the best hard lines in bishop.
slabdyno

03. Feb, 2011

pad stacking to skip a move doesn’t redefine anything about a problem. when did it stop being the definition of cheating?
anson

03. Feb, 2011

Question – Sharma started with the right hand on the high, good crimp that is above the sidepull, and left hand on the low bad crimp. Is it legit to start with the left hand in the same spot (bad low crimp) but the right hand on the sidepull not the right hand crimp that is HIGHER than the sidepull? In other words, because overall you would start lower than Sharma did, would that make it legit?
Brian Camp

03. Feb, 2011

The Mandala starts on the crimps. If you didn’t start there you didn’t do it.
justin

03. Feb, 2011

Jamie, I think you’re mistaken about the broken hold on the Buttermilker, as I remember it was the hold under the underclings that broke not the starting hold. I guess I could be wrong but I’ve always felt pretty certain about this…
Zach

03. Feb, 2011

Post on the Mandala start issue by Voges & subsequent debate. More actual info there.
http://brionvoges.blogspot.com/2010/03/mandala.html
Chunt

03. Feb, 2011

For such an aesthetic problem, I think it is demeaning to talk about something so arbitrary. The undercling is the main feature and one would think you would be satisfied starting at an obvious point and climbing to the top using whatever sequence possible. The crimp to the left is more like a balancing crutch to reach this feature.

When Chris climbed it I’m sure he used the easiest possible sequence for him. I doubt he payed much attention what he pulled off the ground on.

@BigA- I have rarely climbed on a boulder in the Gunks where I haven’t ripped off something. I guess that means I have FAs all over the place. Choss
Jeff

03. Feb, 2011

Just to clarify, the starting hold of The Buttermilker didn’t break, it was the second hold and only part of it broke. It’s just a bigger move to it and a little less incut.
anson

03. Feb, 2011

Anyone else beside that notorious curmudgeon, Brian Camp, have an opinion?
ZK

03. Feb, 2011

How about taping up the starting holds to make sure everyone knows where the starting holds are? They do that in the gym alot.
B3

03. Feb, 2011

Thanks for the info Jeff! I wasn’t 100% sure what had happened.
pmd

03. Feb, 2011

I figured I would chime in with my opinion. Jamie I love your blog, but not the (admittedly few) posts quibbling about validity of ascents. If, while climbing with a friend, they try and weasel their way out of a start I’ll call shenanigans, but I won’t tell the world about it.

In short, I read this blog to hear about climbing, not about what people aren’t climbing.

-pmd
B3

03. Feb, 2011

Thanks for the compliments pmd, I appreciate them. I always have my reasons for posting, and some are more esoteric than others. I wish the weather here was better and there was more climbing to report about.
Josh

03. Feb, 2011

When climbing at the gym, occasionally the crux move will be pulling onto the wall or the first move. Every once in a while, I’ll see someone jump start or start a move or two in. I don’t care how anyone climbs at the gym. As long as everyone is having fun and enjoying themselves, that’s great. But if that person that fudged the start then goes off and tells everyone they did the new Vwhatever that I’ve been struggling on, that annoys me, because the fact is that they didn’t.

Why should things be any different anywhere else?

I don’t care how anyone climbs rocks. As long as they’re being respectful to the rock and to others, then they can climb any boulder any which way they like. But when TALKING about climbing rocks, they should be accurate and honest about their accomplishments. If they climbed a hard problem a move in and are proud of their ascent, then good for them. Just be clear to mention that they started a move in.

In the case of the Mandala, I feel that it’s important to mention whether the problem was done from the high start or Sharma’s original start. Sharma first climbed and named the original problem. To climb it from a different start and then claim an ascent of the Mandala is at the very least inaccurate, and at the most dishonest for claiming a level of difficulty that was not earned.
Dex

03. Feb, 2011

Here are my thoughts:

-Chris probably doesn’t give a crap if people start six inches higher with their lower hand then he did, or in the same place but with their hands reversed, six feet higher with both hands.

-Wills only cares because Lisa started on the same holds that Chris started on because she did it Dave’s method. Obviously if she’d been tall enough to start where the tall people start now she probably would have and Will wouldn’t be making any fuss about it.

-People have to stack pads on top of the rock pile (just like Lisa does in the video) because there was six more inches of dirt under the problem when Chris did it that has since been eroded away from foot traffic.

-Watching the video of Lisa crush it makes you realize how bad-ass and hard doing it that method is. Alex is obviously a female bad-ass of the highest caliber as well and needs to go do some V13s and 14s already since she’s obviously fully capable, dag-nammit!

-
Kaelen W

03. Feb, 2011

This is a confusing and unusual case because the new start is actually a lower hold than the original start. Jamie I think you would normally agree that it is okay to start lower than the first ascentionist, but this one is complicated by the fact that people use a large pad stack to pull into the lower hold, as it is an undercling. Therefore it seems to me that the main breach here is not the hold people are using to start (as it is lower) but the pad stack. This gets tricky, because sometimes people are sort and need to stack a couple pads to reach completely legit start holds. Should that be allowed, or should they have to jump? Something about guys stacking several pads on top of a pile of cheater stones on a problem first done by someone of a similar size (and in fact, by Lisa Rands, who is surely shorter than most ascentionists) with one pad strikes me as… off. To say that is “new beta” is ridiculous. It’s like pulling on a quickdraw and calling it new beta. I think, if people want to claim a true ascent of the Mandala, they can start in th undercling, but they cannot use the cheater stones or pad stack. This would, I think, respect the style of how Chris did it. And it would probably be harder than doing it like Chris, because I think if that way was easier he would have done it like that instead of using the edge.
Char

03. Feb, 2011

One thing that should be clarified here is that starting with stacked pads is not directly linked to starting L on the incut and R on the undercling. With either method we’re still using the high incut as a start hold so height is not the issue. The issue is that it is hard to pull into the undercling with L on the incut. This is the reason so many choose to stack pads – to get better purchase on the cling before pulling off the ground.
bob banks

03. Feb, 2011

This is a no brainer. What this argument needs is a little visual clarification. Here is video of how people are “doing” the Mandala these days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqQdC_smf_0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLqVxJlRCLg&feature=related

Notice the hand placement, not to mention the pad(s) stacked on top of a large pile of stones that are now permanently camped out at the base.

Everyone has seen Sharma do it in Dosage, with his hands starting the same place Lisa starts in the video above. Then he says something like “the first three moves are the crux…matching on the undercling”….oh, you mean that part that all these people are stacking pads over rocks to SKIP? So the gastons after the undercling have broken a bit? So what, it still goes. So the Dave Graham crimp out right broke (see Lisa’s video)? So what, then get stronger and go back to the original sequence. The original start holds are still there.
That dude didn’t flash the Mandala and anyone that starts by standing on 2 1/2 feet of rocks and pads to pull straight into the undercling hasn’t done it either. For someone to claim an ascent of this via cheating through the start is laughable.
Crafty

03. Feb, 2011

@Mojo- I think you make several good points. I feel that much of what’s being discussed is partially an honesty issue (“here’s where I started”) as well as a disrespect issue (“I started higher than the first ascensionist but am still calling my achievement the Mandala”).

Claiming an ascent of something we have actually made easier and not truly done is essentially lying. Starting higher, and being honest about it is better, but still bad style if you seek to call your accomplishment “the Mandala,” or whatever.

The grey area comes in when people are short and have difficulty reaching high start holds, or spanning two widely spaced sidepulls. Then, ideally, one would use pads to start from the same high start hold, or, start lower and be up front about what they have done.

What I think may have been missed here (and correct me if I’m wrong)- hasn’t one of the starting crimps on the Mandala, used by Sharma on the FA, broken? This may be where some of the confusion starts. Is there still a hold there that one can use?
Crafty

03. Feb, 2011

Also, I suspect that much of what we’re discussing stems from the conflict of difficulty vs quality. As in, difficult problems are not always high quality, and quality problems are not always difficult. When someone starts a relatively difficult, relatively high quality problem in a somewhat inobvious, arguably low-quality start, it seems reasonable that others would seek to make the start better. Doing so, in this case, reduces the difficulty of the problem.

I agree that this new start should be called something different, and that the grade is not V12. But it may be a more enjoyable way to climb the rock, so give it that respect.

Jamie, regarding the confusion about the start of Animal, you stated:

Here is video of what I would consider an invalid, although common, “ascent” of Animal.
Certainly people are welcome to climb the rock in this way. As a matter of fact I would encourage it if it inspires them in this way, however claiming that this is the same problem as Daniel climbed is inaccurate.

Can we say the same thing about this higher start on the Mandala boulder?
big poppa chosscrush

03. Feb, 2011

again, i do not have the time to read this, but like a bug to the zapper…

i think that someone should ask jeff silcox to chime in here. i asked him about the mandala last summer and he had some very interesting information regarding the breakage and all the controversy.

regarding the pad stack, it was my understanding that if somenone is not super tall it is not physically possible to touch the starting holds, original or not. the ground has eroded substantially since the FA.

this is a common issue on old Colorado lines where the original start is now much higher than it used to be. one quick example is that the original start of here comes sickness is no longer a sit, but more of a crouch.

i like the idea of just calling it mandala high. my understanding from jeff was that the newly accepted high start makes the line flow much better after all the breakage and that forcing sharma’s beta undermines the quality of the rig. this may be putting words in his mouth, but it is what i took away from the conversation.

grade of the high/new? i’ll leave that one alone, but suffice it to say that it sounds like i’d personally prefer to do the good version, even if that meant having to wear some sort of scarlet letter for it.
sidepull

03. Feb, 2011

I’ll respectfully agree and disagree with PMD.

AGREE: This is an awesome blog …
DISAGREE: … BECAUSE of Jamie’s willingness to address exactly these sorts of issues.

I am firmly in the Brian Camp “camp” on this one. I admit that problems evolve because of breakage and sequences may evolve. But to claim an ascent, the climber must start in the same place. I think I see Chunt’s point, each of individually work out beta to make the moves between a certain set of holds as easy and fluid as possible but the common factor is that we challenge ourselves against the same set of holds. Stacking pads does not equal better beta otherwise we wouldn’t climb rocks we’d just set up ladders.

Finally, as a gentle jab, I was happy to hear Jamie call for a variation to the Buttermilker to keep the name “buttermilker” … and I think that Alex and Brion would be more transparent if they claimed to climb “Mandala Undercling Variation” rather than claiming to climb the Mandala.

And finally finally, I think Jamie’s suspicions of latent sexism are interesting and perhaps dead on. Why haven’t we been having this exact conversation before? How many videos are there of guys climbing this exact variation on Youtube and no one has questioned the validity?

At the very least, we can all agree, whatever it was Alex climbed, it was an awesome accomplishment.
cardboard_dog

03. Feb, 2011

I wouldn’t have even posted barring the fact that “Alex” chimed in with this

“I tend to think that a problem belongs to the climbing community as a whole, not the first ascensionist. …….. The climb has evolved with the newfound knowledge of the community.”

And Voges on his blog states that the climb is more in line with a “V11″ …

but neither of you climbed the line the way that others who have taken the V12, including Sharma the first ascentionist, climbed the line, but instead you offer excuses as to why it’s okay to for you NOT climb the line in proper style but still take the grade of V12 on your spew Cards.

Now … I may not be an ultimate authority but, I’ve dedicated my life to climbing for many years. And I may have spent the majority of those years fat, drunk and smoking cigarettes, but but I still sent every line I set out to send, and did it proper. Without starting 2 or three moves in while taking the grade and giving excuses as to why it was okay for me to do that.

Climbing is a sport based on purity and honesty. And despite the fact that there is a pervasive attitude of ‘Changing the game” among the new school of climbers, the reality is that you CAN”T change the game and quite simply it doesn’t need to be changed.

1 fact. There were climbers long before you who accomplished everything you have been able to accomplish n the rock in PURE STYLE. Without complaining or expecting acknowledgement or sponsorship as a direct result of a hard send.

fact 2. As long as there remains that climber in this sport who continues to climb at the top of the game, able to send the hardest boulders in the purest of styles, without the need for recognition or sponsorship dollars, and that climber has ALWAYS existed and always will, … Sponsored climbers who cry about their own invalid ascents and try to “change the game” by convincing the “community” why their invalid ascents are actually valid will never be taken seriously. Ever. EVer..
Cat

03. Feb, 2011

Jamie, I can always count on your website to bring up some hot topic for people to squabble over and for me to waste time reading while at work. Thanks!

As as this topic, I really enjoyed reading Wills Young’s blog about the Mandala. It was very well written and it comes down to this baseline that I am in total concurrence with:

You have only truly climbed a boulder problem if you begin on the same holds as the FAs.

There are definitely some gray areas in regards to problems where the a start hold gets broken, etc. but I feel like at least for the Mandala, this is clear. Stacking pads… seriously? When has that ever been legit? Reading Brion Voges blog about the Mandala also had me shaking my head in disbelief. His reasoning behind why he thinks stacking pads on a problem is still climbing the Mandala don’t make sense any which way (which Olsen does a great job of pointing out).

All in all, clearly AJ worked hard and made a great send, but she did not send the Mandala. Nor did Brion Voges flash it. Yes, they did something hard, something I’ll probably never climb, but they didn’t repeat the classic.
wpa

04. Feb, 2011

http://www.bigupproductions.com/#/vidplayer/The_Mandala_s/

seems to me that most people are not trying the original two moves.
big poppa chosscrush

04. Feb, 2011

only solution is to truck in more gravel, raise the landing, and have christian griffith do one of his admittedly artful historical hold local stone recreation efforts.

gravel and glue.

otherwise, there is the original, crappy version. there is the high, more fun version with the scarlet letter requirement. there is the fully legit low start (lamiche didn’t seem to start actually sitting so it is not a sit start, unless the video missed him pulling his ass off the ground).

whatever.
big poppa chosscrush

04. Feb, 2011

wait, if the undercling is lower than sharma’s right hand, why do folks not just start with their right hand in the undercling jug but with their left hand lower?

if that is the beta being questioned, then i think it seals the deal that the mandala is a great looker from a-far but to covered in bullshit to be appealing anymore.

what a shame for such a brilliant line to be crappified by disputes regarding the positioning of hands.
ktmt

04. Feb, 2011

+1 bob banks. Perfect summary. This discussion should have ended right after your post.
alex johnson

04. Feb, 2011

I wouldn’t normally “chime in” except to say that I haven’t “chimed in” with anything, nor will I again after this statement.
slabdyno

04. Feb, 2011

profound.

is that the sound of a crumpling 8a card ?