Midnight Express

Posted on 22. Feb, 2011 by in News

I was out of town this weekend but caught wind of a troubling trend that continues to seemingly plague the world of bouldering. In 2007 Ty Landman climbed a stellar line in upper Boulder Canyon. Midnight Express V14 begin with a very difficult move right off the start. In fact the first three moves of the problem are the crux, and this is followed by much relatively easier climbing, around V7 or V8. Tyler started sitting, with his left hand on an incut edge and his right hand on a low pinch. Seth Allred, Daniel Woods and Paul Robinson have all repeated the line this way. Dave Graham, and most recently Jimmy Webb, started higher, with their left hand on a pinch. I found this to be a hard, but doable move (from the incut to the pinch), when I tried the line briefly this fall. I think this emphasizes the importance, again, of starting where the FAist started. As long as climbers continue to climb less the what the first ascentionist climbed, post videos on youtube, and claim it to be the same thing, I will continue to call them out! Jimmy and Dave are my friends, but that doesn’t mean I condone their actions.

Ty climbs the FA

2 from Boulder Canyon, CO from Jimmy Webb on Vimeo.

Jimmy’s ascent

Dave’s ascent

46 Responses to “Midnight Express”

  1. pat sheridan

    22. Feb, 2011

    so just wondering if they had started in the same spot as ty then immediately bumped into the same spot as jimmy started it would all be legit.
    i agree but at the same time think it might just be insanely low for some people(never touched the problem just basing on video) ty seeming to be the smallest of the 3. but i guess they should just state there differences

  2. Eric Heiden

    22. Feb, 2011

    While I’ve read some of your other posts about this kind of topic I think this is going too far.

    If a left hand is on and a right hand is on and instead you use the right hand and a pinch between the two, sitting in the same place then it is the same problem. Unless Ty sat there and said “this pinch is off” and made it an eliminate. Otherwise it’s just better beta for those guys.

  3. Mojo

    22. Feb, 2011

    To me, all that this emphasizes is that the first ascentionist should start from the most logical point. For sit starts, this doesn’t mean the lowest holds physically possible. It means the easiest way up, starting from sitting on the ground.

    Keep in mind that (despite presence of video for this particular example) most climbers on most problems have no idea where the first ascentionist started. If the guide book says “sit-start” all you can do i sit on the ground, grab the best holds you can reach and go from there.

  4. Lee Payne

    22. Feb, 2011

    I’d like to submit an amendment for review. Can we start like Jimmy did and get 8B? I’m not sure if I could get down in that hole and make my shoulders fit through the move the way Ty did. Looks like it works nicely for him though. Maybe we could call it After Midnight.

  5. Ryan J

    22. Feb, 2011

    Daniel starts one move lower on Fantasia as well…

  6. B3

    22. Feb, 2011

    it should be known that it was Mr. Webb who gave me the name “The Sheriff”.

  7. Zachary Lesch-Huie

    22. Feb, 2011

    Sheriff, you might have a horse to ride in on if you didn’t beat the poor horse to death.

    A “plague”? A “troubling trend”? Have you been watching Fox News? Lordy man, your point is well-taken enough, and yes, something’s at stake here I suppose, but are the stakes really that high?

    Blog readers try this for a more convincing and humbly presented position on this issue: http://bishopbouldering.blogspot.com/2011/02/mandala-start-some-background-info.html

    Dave and Jimmy certainly didn’t start using the same holds as Ty. But their beta looks better doesn’t it? I wonder if Ty might say, “Dang, that’s better beta – that’s how that thing should start!”

  8. JR

    22. Feb, 2011

    You know B3, if you get your way there will be fewer videos for you to “sheriff”.

  9. Jimmy Webb

    22. Feb, 2011

    Thanks Jamie for bringing up this discussion. I in some ways agree with your point on this, but at the same time I believe that a boulder should be started in the most logical spot, rather than where the FAist decided to start. Not trying disrespect Ty in anyway, I just believe the boulder is more important then the person who happened to climb it first. With that being said, when I climbed the boulder, I did feel as if I had climbed a little less than what Ty did. Oh well, I will be returning in early March and will be around for a month n a half. I will try and go climb this thing from the OG start just for you jamie! :)

    JW

  10. C.M.

    22. Feb, 2011

    I think it is appalling these actions of the supposed upper elite of our sport. Just to send a problem they are willing to lie and jeopardize our sport. Start where the person who did the problem first did, or else it is not a send.
    I also want to call out these athletes on continued stashing of pads. I recently read that Daniel and Dave had their pads “stolen” at the Bambi boulder. Why are they so lazy they can not hike in and out a pad. I have hiked a Mondo and two other pads in and out on multiple occasions. I do hope they get their pads back but come on. Jimmy in particualr stashed his pads at Evans while camping illegally across the stream by area A a few years ago. It only adds to the laziness when you see fifteen people in the video of their sends. Each person carries a pad and you plenty to make almost any problem safe.
    You are representing our sport put a good name out their for us. Actions like this only hurt our sport.

  11. John Meget

    22. Feb, 2011

    What became of Ty? Haven’t heard anything about him for some time now.

  12. B3

    22. Feb, 2011

    those adjectives were written tongue in cheek. Jimmy, thanks for commenting and showing everyone that I am not always so serious.

  13. Kaelen W

    22. Feb, 2011

    Whoa whoa whoa… tongue in cheek? That sounds awfully subjective, Jamie.

  14. Jimmy Webb

    22. Feb, 2011

    C.M.

    Haha, I in no way lied about how I started Midnight Express ( You saw the video?) And i am also a little confused how this jeopardizes our sport? Just because i started with my left hand about 9 inches away from the hold Ty started on? Come on….

    As for your claims at Mt. Evans. I did camp across the stream at Lower Area A. This was my first year climbing in Colorado and I had no clue you were not allowed to camp there. We saw a camp fire ring, and thought it was all good. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I’ve heard that you’re not allowed to camp there. And about the pad stashing, i have no clue where you got your info. I hiked my oversized misty pad in that spot every day.

    JW

  15. sidepull

    22. Feb, 2011

    Kudos to Jamie and Jimmy. Important topic and nice response. All too often the climbers are silent about these sorts of things which prolongs the debate.

  16. klaun

    22. Feb, 2011

    jimmy should have campused the last few moves as well…i’m sure this adds a little spice to the finish and it looks sick strong. :)

    by the way: i think mojo’s got a good point on this one – if it’s not precisely described in the guidebook a boulders start should be the most obvious, not an eliminate. (although ty’s sequence simply looks harder and maybe that’s the tad of difficulty that legitimates the 8bplus?!)

    whatever – this looks to be a great boulderproblem (saw footage of daniel on the reel rock film – these holds are tiny) and i like to see videos of different climbers on that thing.

    as for the cheating – how dumb would it be to think a send wouldn’t be correct and then publish video footage of it…

  17. rainer

    22. Feb, 2011

    for me what dave and jimmy did is a total clean sit start, ass leaving ground as last part of the body. this discussion is totally contrived in this case. you just can’t define every move of a boulder problem, if I use another hold on one of the moves in the middle of a boulder problem nobody would say this is wrong, so why do it on the start? if somebody starts at the completely wrong point (like C.T. on Le Piller, Chironico), doesn’t follow the original line to the end (http://vimeo.com/16138438, he’s not doing souvenir 8A, but souvenir var. 7Bish) or does not start in a really sitting position this is a different case and you can’t count this a a valid ascent of the boulder problem.
    Just my understanding of the rules of the game

  18. michael rathke

    22. Feb, 2011

    well put once again Jamie
    If one is trying to repeat the same problem they should start where the first ascentionist started.

    Going too far would be condoning them, holding grudges, and without constructive criticizm. As some people stated you are going to far but I dont believe you are, ever have or ever will. Some trolls out there that do go too far are out to get you so just be aware.

    I think what Dave and Jimmy did should be dubbed California Zephyr.
    When are you going to make the ascent?? I swear with a little bit of yoga you would be able to walk that climb because it is your style.

  19. Biffo

    22. Feb, 2011

    Logic check:

    DG climbed the island. More recent ascents have used a lower start — “the big island”. Are these people disrespecting DG/the problem/whathaveyou by not doing the same as the FA?

    So yeah, Rainer’s got it. If you are sitting, it is the sit start.

  20. peter beal

    22. Feb, 2011

    Ty sent me a message about this a few days ago in the hopes that a distinction would be drawn between his first ascent method ascent and the most recent variations. In my webguide to Boulder Canyon, I clearly state what Ty’s starting holds were. Ty also said his hope initially was to start matched at the left incut but that it seemed too lowball to be worth the trouble.

    I don’t have any comment about the other method besides saying that consensus has emerged in the past on other problems and will on this problem as well.

  21. Cat

    22. Feb, 2011

    Once again, Jamie finds a subject to rile up the masses!

    I really appreciated Jimmy’s post which was well written and gracious, even after his buddy called him out for the entire world to read over the internet. It doesn’t seem like Jimmy ever claimed to have climbed Midnight Express exactly the way Ty did, so I’m not sure where all the finger pointing is coming from. And C.M., dude, seriously, chill out and take a breather.

    As for the actual subject Jamie is trying to discuss, I think we’re again at that hazy intersection of climbing a boulder because you see a beautiful line and then also squabbling about the semantics of it. I think Jimmy and Dave both started Midnight Express at a logic spot, even if it wasn’t the “true” beginning. Ty got the FA, he has that honor and that line in his name, and now it seems like returning climbers can choose where to begin as they see fit. Each climber will know whether or not they began the way Ty did and they can choose to report their ascent as they see fit.

    While I do appreciate you bringing up this interesting topic, Jamie, I do find it a bit low and unnecessary to call your “friends” out on it.

  22. Adam M

    22. Feb, 2011

    Hey Jamie, I didn’t want to put a huge post up, so I wrote a little thing here and if you want to read it, or you have some time. Go for it.

    It’s longer than thread posts should be!

    http://27crags.com/climbers/amarkert/blog

    Adam

  23. michael rathke

    22. Feb, 2011

    I have bouldered in many area’s where there is pleanty of things like this going on and its no big deal, its for fun actually…That is a different start.

  24. JamesO

    22. Feb, 2011

    Jimmy,

    The problem with the logical start arguement is that it is subjective. For example I think the logical start for Right Martini is the Esperanza jug. But can I start there and call it Right Martini? If people start taking things from a move or two in and say that it is the more logical start, then everyone will start things that way because it is easier and now accepted. I do also agree with Jamie that this seems to be a growing trend; I just watched a couple video’s of people “sending” the Automator TWO hold left of the actual start. These should not be counted as sends of the Automator just because some people saw it as the “logical” start.

    What the logical start to a boulder is could constantly change and will allways make a boulder easier than it originally was. If people, as I am sure some do, think the logical start for Esperanza is the Right Martini jug, will they start there and just call it Esperanza? Hell no, they think it should be a different climb because it is harder. So why can you make things easier and call it the same climb?

    The fact that there is even debate is a problem for the logical start arguement. There is no debate as to where Ty and the problem he put up started.

  25. B3

    22. Feb, 2011

    Thank you JAMES!
    and Peter too, interesting that Ty weighed in with his thoughts.
    It isn’t disrespectful to start lower because you are adding to what the first climber did. Starting higher takes away.
    I will stand by the idea that no climber is above being questioned, as long as it is in a logical and reasonable manner.

  26. Jimmy Webb

    22. Feb, 2011

    James,

    Again, I have to say that I agree & disagree. The problem with your Right martini argument is that you are choosing to start the boulder like 5 moves in. When it plainly starts at the lowest part of the boulder, sit start, on a jug comfortably. Midnight Express starts on two different holds sitting down, which is precisely what I did, except I started somewhat matched at the right hand. I agree that this is not exactly what Ty climbed, but in difficulty I believe it to be similar. Just an easier method for me. Also, one of the first videos I ever saw of this problem was of Dave. So obviously I saw this to be the start, and figured it was the accepted method.

    In the end, I honestly agree with trying to climb the boulder starting as the FA did, unless the method used is just absurd. There will always be boulders that touch on this grey area, but when it comes down to it, I just went out and climbed the boulder in the method I saw honest. Not to disrespect Ty, not to be rebellious and chase grades, but to start sitting on the ground and go up this amazing piece of rock.

    JW

  27. Adam M

    22. Feb, 2011

    I’m going to start boulder problems laying on the ground in an extremely weird way.

    Then when people come by and say, “that’s a stupid start, i’m doing it higher up,” i’ll jump on em for taking away from my original problem, and we can start all over again.

    Or, more likely, everyone will gather together and call MY original problem lame, and say I never should have started it there to begin with. There in contradicting their own positions on first ascentionists’ start holds.

  28. sidepull

    23. Feb, 2011

    @CAT – the flaw in your argument is that you assume people know where the FAist started. What Jamie has shown with both this problem and the Mandala (as examples, certainly there are more) is that many people don’t know where the FAist started or they are simply following a consensus that has softened the original problem. I’m all for people climbing a line because they want to climb, but if you’re going to publicly claim a problem then you need to do the problem as it was defined. Again, I have no ill will toward Jimmy on this matter – he’s owned up to it, put the video on the web so he’s not hiding anything, and he’s one of the few top climbers that doesn’t hide behind silence on such matters.*

    * I think it’s worth reiterating a point brought up in the Mandala thread. A lot of us deplore the lack of decorum in online forums when discussing the grey areas of climbing. While I don’t think this is unique to climbing, it is perhaps more important to climbing because climbing has no professional league, no rule book, no official standards. Our “guidelines” are created by conversation so some disagreement and argument should be expected. I think it’s unfortunate that so many of today’s premier climbers step into the grey areas in their climbing but are completely unwilling to step into the conversations online and explain their rationale. This silence becomes even more problematic when, as has been suggested at times on this blog, the elite climbers should be dictating ethics. It is also a bit hypocritical since these same climbers that espouse silence (or hide behind it) are vocal enough about their accomplishments – posting video, updating 8a.nu, getting in “hot flashes” on climbing.com, etc. In other words, everyone likes it when the internet provides them positive attention, they should be willing to deal with the questions that come from that attention. That doesn’t mean Jimmy** needs to respond here, or that Alex Johnson or Rich Simpson or Paul. But it does mean they should respond somewhere or else eschew publicizing their ascents.

    ** Jimmy’s blog is pretty awesome. He’s definitely leading the pack in terms of communicating about these things.

  29. michael rathke

    23. Feb, 2011

    Jimmy turned that technical wrestling match problem into an all out power problem busting up right and Then going into the undercling. I think he opened up something for a lot of people with that beta.

  30. Jack Dixon

    23. Feb, 2011

    I’m a staunch proponent of following the methods of a first ascentionist but when it comes to low or even very low starts I don’t think you can “always” force the beta! It is a bit of a stretch as a first ascentioinist to expect all climbers to do what you do. If it’s a “sit start” that is about the extent to which you can expect others to follow! Taller climbers are rarely going to use the methods of shorter climbers in the middle or the top of a problem and it is going to be an issue at the starts too! Rules for problems kinda have to be limited to: start here, climb along here, and finish here! Now sometimes things like: you can’t use this big jug off to the side here, are ok but, if a very tall climber establishes a sit start with both arms outstretched overhead, then a pad or two might be in order for a short climber. Same thing the other way; if a short climber does a sit start with both hands near their shoelaces a taller climber might logically start with their hands a little advanced! Now I don’t think this really applies to Jimmy and Ty but, this is a subtle grey area and won’t (can’t) always be cut and dry! I do think every effort should be made to know and follow proper methods but, as for Jimmy, I doubt if you could stump him with some trick novelty opening or any other beta for that matter! ha ha

  31. Scott

    23. Feb, 2011

    I don’t personally know Midnight Express from any other piece of rock, nor do I climb harder than V7. But, from reading this discussion I’ve gained a lot of respect for Mr. Webb. In the past, Jimmy, I’ve just seen your name attached to various hard sends which was impressive but didn’t say much for you as a representative of the sport. Now, I’m of the opinion that you’re not only strong as hell but a true professional/nice guy, please keep it up.

  32. Jeremy Tyler Walton

    23. Feb, 2011

    This topic is stupid. I’m glad I no longer care about climbing. I climb v5’s now, and I start wherever I want. This sport is dumb.

  33. mb

    23. Feb, 2011

    in Font, the true home of sit starts, the rule is you either start on an obvious starting hold or anywhere you want so long as your ass is on the ground (on a pad doesn’t count).
    Either way, I agree with Jimmy, he simply started matched on the starting right hand hold. if Ty missed this sequence than too bad. just because the FAist does something stupid does not mean those that follow have to do it as well. An example, if he used the same starting holds as Ty but with his hands switched because it worked better, would that be ok? What about footholds, must one also use the same starting footholds?
    p.s. personal opinion are that crouch starts are ok in the case where you cannot reach the first holds from sitting

  34. B3

    23. Feb, 2011

    Mike, how do you define obvious? What is obvious to one person is not to another. Perhaps the “obvious” start for Black Lung for me is to stack pads and start on the pockets, two moves in. I think my suggestions are less subjective.

  35. Philip

    23. Feb, 2011

    Not to beat this topic to death, but I have always thought it was kind of a weird situation when a climb has two start holds. Especially on a climb where one start hold is good enough to start matched on, it seems really contrived to force a start on both (like Golden Rows of Flows or something). I have no idea what the start holds are like on Midnight Express, and whether or not this is the case. Honestly it would be awesome if every climb outside had an obvious start jug at the perfect height and we didn’t have to deal with this… but unfortunately this isn’t the case. That being said I don’t really see this issue ever going away.

  36. mb

    24. Feb, 2011

    Obvious meaning if the sit start has an obvious hold (like the start to Stained Glass). And Black Lung is not a sit start. However, I do agree some stand starts can be inobvious. In Font, generally it is allowed to jump up to the first hold, or start as high as you can reach for a stand start. There are many problems in the US of course where this would radically change the problem. For example, tall people could certainly start on the “copperhead” hold on Copperhead, but the problem starts on the lower holds that are directly across from each other, which is fairly obvious.
    For me I think the clearest and best way is as follows:
    1) if there is an obvious jug, rail, series of holds, that is the start;
    2) if you cannot reach the lowest holds, regardless of size, stacking pads is acceptable;
    3) start on any holds that are relatively at the same level on a particular problem, such as here with Midnight Express, Dave and Jimmy are essentially starting matched on the same right starting hold that Ty used;
    4) sit starts start sitting, on a pad is acceptable to me or if you cannot reach the first holds then either stacking pads to sit or crouching is acceptable.
    I don’t think the example of Black Lung is a good one even though I get your meaning, because BL has some good holds to start on right off the ground, so if stacking pads and starting on the pockets was the “obvious” start to someone, I would seriously question that person’s intelligence.
    Of course just my opinions, but worthwhile trying to figure out the best possible solution, as it does call into question some ascents and has valid implications to bouldering and grades. The beauty of the sport is that if you aren’t sponsored or have a scorecard or publicize your ascents there are no real rules, and you are not accountable. In that case, you can start wherever you please and just do it for fun. This is not meant to be a dig at pro climbers, I think it is awesome that people are getting paid to climb. And in that arena, it is necessary to determine whether there has been a “valid” ascent of a problem, particularly if it is closer to the top end, and the ascent is publicized.
    sorry for the long winded reply, interesting topic.

  37. your and idiot

    24. Feb, 2011

    “Mike, how do you define obvious? What is obvious to one person is not to another.”

    Jamie, you are just getting more and more redicilious… you realize this concept is not just a “problem” for climbing but for many other issues. Notably in law… where it is pretty well established that it is the opinion of a “reasonable person” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_personwhich). basically, if you put a bunch of climbers infront of that particular rock and asked them “where a reasonable place to start” is. clearly, (and as “codified” by competition rules… if you think those have any validity in respect to outdoor climbing; which I think most people would accept, atleast the broad rules like touching the ground is off) then starting a problem matched on one of two “reasonable” start holds (in this case those established by the FA) is completely reasonable.

  38. big poppa chosscrush

    25. Feb, 2011

    i have not read the comments, so sorry in advance if someone already said this:

    the only solution to this plague is to chisel the shit out of every climb so that there is an incut, comfortable jug at an appropriate height for EVERY line.

    “jug” shall be determined in accordance with the law of the soverign nation that contains the line in question.

    to the extent that one soverign nation’s qualifications for ‘jug’ differ significantly, that nation should be bombed into oblivion and the ashes pissed on.

    this is the ONLY way.

    admit it now.

  39. Adam M

    26. Feb, 2011

    You think this same question exists in the TRAD world? Like, when Royal Robbins did the first ascent of a bad-ass line on El Cap, are all other ascentionists slapping him in the face by doing it with cams, good ropes, bolts, and porta-ledges?

    If a FA is done a certain way, when i repeat it, do I have to make the same gear placements? Do I have to clip that shady piton that Royal placed (ground up) instead of drop in a bomber yellow Alien?

    When I use a great tape job so I don’t wreck my hands, is that bad form because the FAist didn’t do it? The Monster Off-widths: do I face to the left or to the right? Tommy found some pretty sexy beta for The Nose crux. Bad form? Not the way the FA did it?

    Things that make you go “Hhhhmmmmm….”

    :)

  40. BIG SOCKA CHOSSHANDS

    28. Feb, 2011

    in theory, the reasonable person standard is predictable. in practice, i can assure you that there is a substantial amount of grey that can yield very unexpected results that would differ between each judge or magistrate making the ruling.

    if a jury is attempting to apply the reasonable person standard via jury instructions, the results can be equally diverse.

    CHISEL IT ALL. PAINT IT BLACK.

  41. Patrick

    01. Mar, 2011

    Woah guys. I come from a surfing background and have been climbing boulders for a few years. I recently began reading shit on the internet about climbing and I just have to say that you guys can squabble worse than teenage girls! Sit start=sit down and climb up the fuckin boulder. Anything else is anal retentive nitpicking. I understand that people will climb slightly differently(just as surfers carve a wave differently) but why is this such a big deal? “Oh, Jimmy didnt use the same hold as Ty’s start 3 inches to the left!” WTF? So what? If grades are as subjective as man is unique, why get bothered? Maybe it is easier for the climber. Climb harder or climb SMARTER?

  42. Martin

    01. Mar, 2011

    Well said Patrick!!

    This is utterly ridiculous.

    Using one pad:

    Sit start= ass leaves ground last and anything goes!
    Stand start= anything goes!!
    Defined start= start on defined starting hold.

  43. JamesO

    02. Mar, 2011

    I guess this discussion is mostly dead. But this is really bothering me. You cannot just say “sit down and climb up the boulder” and that is the rock climb, I cannot sit down at Free Willy, ooch my ass a foot to the left, and climb that V1 and call it Free Willy. Maybe there are some out there but I rarely see a line that is the obvious way up the boulder, the easiest way to climb Terremer then is to walk a few feet to the right and climb up a slab. Virtually all boulders are contrivances, this is not a matter of semantics or hyperbole. I understand that no one will claim an ascent of Terremer by climbing the slab to the right. But what is happening all the time is the same infraction at a smaller scale. Jimmy earlier attempted to refute my point by saying that Right Martini had a very obvious start that will not be confused. That seems to be missing the point, Right Martini is not my point. My point is that people can and will bend the logical start argument to make things easier for themselves.

    Since when is climbing about doing what is easiest???

    As I said early if you want to do what is easy just go around to the back of the boulder and walk up a slab. If you are trying to climb for the challenge of completing a boulder problem with an attached grade, do it the established way so you are actually doing the boulder. Yes, you can take the “All you guys are too serious just go out and climb” argument all you want, but if you do, you should not claim ascents. Just do it for your own enjoyment right?

    People do not start boulder problems wrong because they are more logical they do it because they want it to be easier. Two videos:

    http://vimeo.com/7566187

    http://www.dpmclimbing.com/climbing-videos/watch/short-trip-hueco

    In the first video we see an “ascent” of the Automator from two moves left of the start. If you have been to the boulder you know there are two jugs low on the arete that you start on, they are obvious. But apparently starting left in a foothold is also obvious.

    In the second video the main concern is Nurse Ratchet, this may be less known but there are perfect perfect Hueco style start jugs, it would be painful to not start there even if you do not know the grade or have a scorecard. So why is it being started a move in? Because starting one hand above on a small crimp is more obvious? Because she is just to bohemian for the system? No it is because it is easier. Another example in the same video is in Schewer Gustov, is it just so rad and comfortable to start with your feet over your head?

    Climbing is not about what is easiest. If your argument is that this is all so unimportant and merely squabble than don’t record or video ascents, just go climb for yourself.

  44. cardboard_dog

    02. Mar, 2011

    Unfortunately I don’t think it’s as simple as just “climb for fun!!” and I doubt Jamie is trying to adhere to rules for those who do just climb for fun. Whats in question is the validity of hard ascents and also the taking of the full grade and publishing it. There are waaaaay more climbers out there than there were 15, even 10 years ago, and ethics are relaxing. So maybe a little policing isn’t such a bad thing? Keep it honest is all I think is being said.

    Just my opinion.

  45. chuck Friburgler

    05. Mar, 2011

    I just wanted to say I do a lot of filming of xtream rock climbs & I think Boulder problems should all be stand started ,, jus to go with human evolution and the times …. what we walk on all fours again or something ? we need to sit down all the time ??? well thats just lazy … come on stand up and rock climb all ready … what James & Dave did is defiantly not the right way to start that boulder !!! John Dune & Charlie Bently did this block about a decade ago and stand started it and these jokers go and do a lazy start as im calling them now ??? and Ty ? WTF can people really fit down under like that ? you know what is to be said here …. you fool me once & shame on you ! ,,, you fool me twice & ….

  46. […] least…maybe…depending on how you define/enforce where the problem starts. ↩ Share this post:Reddit /* */ /* */ Posted In: Asides, Bouldering, News […]

Leave a Reply