Dai Koyamada on The Story of Two Worlds Low Start V16

Posted on 11. Jun, 2012 by in News

In 2010 Dai Koyamada climbed what he thought was The Story of Two Worlds, a benchmark V15 established 7 years ago by David Graham in Cresciano, CH. It was quickly brought to his attention that he had started one move in, or at least in a different and higher place than Dave had. So often boulderers of today will justify a higher start to an established problem with statements ranging from somewhat reasonable to totally ridiculous, like “It’s not obvious to start where he did” or “It’s awkward” or “It’s my anti-style to start there”. Again, starting in a different place than the first ascentionist, and claiming to have done the same thing is not accurate, not matter how painful that may feel.
Dai flew all the way to Switzerland from Japan, spending thousands of dollars, and many days working on a very long and involved problem, returned home “victorious” only to be told later that he started in the wrong place, by a matter of inches. Taking the absolute high road, he didn’t claim that he had done the problem, and returned two years later to climb the line from an even lower start, adding a few difficult moves into the beginning of Dave’s original line. This is a great story about one of the best boulderers on the planet, doing things to the highest standard possible. Very well done. Here is an excellent video documenting the ascent. This is one of the better pieces of climbing video I have seen in the last few years, and it stands in stark contrast to what has been a trend lately of more, louder, bigger, and “better”. I appreciate the very non-American approach to climbing presented here. It is thoughtful, subtle, and well done.

35 Responses to “Dai Koyamada on The Story of Two Worlds Low Start V16”

  1. Antonio

    11. Jun, 2012

    I agree, this one high quality video showcasing one of the hardest problems in the planet and one of the top rock climber who ever lived. Very well done mr. Koyamada!

  2. Josh

    11. Jun, 2012

    I too thought this was the best bit of climbing film I’ve seen in some time. Puts the currently en vogue jump edited, speed changing videos to shame.

  3. mcsquared

    11. Jun, 2012

    I really appreciated the emotion that he showed during and after topping the problem out. When he stood on top of the boulder and stared up into the trees it was a very reflective moment. You don’t see that a lot anymore which is sad.

  4. AB

    11. Jun, 2012

    I have a real question. He says his new start begins on the undercling … technically he does beause he puts his hands there. But he’s not exactly starting in an undercling position … also, his feet starting on a hold above/on the normal start.

    I guess I’m not sure if both versions of the problem begin with that toe-hook/bat-hang that he does . Assuming that they’re don’t, I’m wondering if you can you claim a lower start if your feet are actually starting higher up the problem?

    It seems like Dai’s version actually starts higher up the problem because when he pulls onto the boulder problem, the highest part of his body is beginning on that sloping triangle feature.

    Also, are those tick marks really necessary?!?!?!

    Help me, Sheriff!

  5. B3

    11. Jun, 2012

    Good question AB! Well, I think the problem should be defined as to where your hands start, then the feet can do anything. That seems to be the simplest definition. Occasionally, (Stegasaurus in Hueco Tanks comes to mind) the first ascensionist will start facing into the overhang, and subsequent ascentionists will start facing away, toe hooking. I think this is acceptable as long as the hands are on the same holds as the FAist. In the instance of Stegasaurus it is a bit fishy because to start toehooking, its easier to with opposite hands (although it can be done with hands crossed) In this instance, Dai’s hands are lower, starting matched on the undercling, and so I would say that he did start lower. He also has to climb into where Dave started, so not only is it physically lower, but also lower in the sequence.
    I don’t think it is appropriate to define the start by where the highest part of ones body starts, because it would make the starting hold argument more subjective. Would a taller climber then not do a problem simply because they were too tall, and they exceeded the limit? I don’t think that should matter.
    Again, I think the best way to define what a boulder problem is by where the FAist starts with their hands. Dai started with his hands lower, climbed into where Dave started and finished out the line. He added more climbing to the problem and thus he is accurate when he says it is an FA. This would be a great topic over dinner and drinks! Thanks for writing though, its a good question and one that was in my mind while I was writing the post. He claims to have started on the undercling, which is accurate. He providers uncut footage of his ascent. He’s not trying to hide anything. He is very upfront and honest about what he has done and I think it’s great! Just for reference, here is video of Carlo trying TSOTW from Dave’s original start.
    http://fiveten.com/community/blog-detail/10571-carlo-traversi-video-the-story-of-two-worlds

  6. entropy

    12. Jun, 2012

    I’m a little confused. In the video you linked, it looks like Carlo is starting in exactly the same place as Dai wrongly started (at least according to the photo from Dai’s video at 1:09).

  7. AB

    12. Jun, 2012

    Thanks for clearing this up, man. That vid of Carlo also helps.

    But I gotta say, I’m not sure I agree with the logic here. Let me preface this comment by stating the fact that I don’t really care whatsoever about these rules and etiquettes, and I’m just killing time while I wait for you to play me back in Words With Friends, but I do find this interesting as a thought experiment.

    Let’s say if I do an FA of a sitstart, and intentionally start such that my hands are crossed up so I have to match and piano my fingers out before I can move up into the next sequence, and then claim that this match is what adds a grade of difficulty to the problem’s rating. no one in their right mind would ever start like this because it makes more sense to start with your hands switched to avoid having to do this heinous match. It would be a bit–I don’t know, tyrannical?–of me to expect everyone to do what I did if they, too, want to get “full credit” for their repeats of my sit start.

    I sort of feel like that is what is going on here… To me it looks like Dai is starting in the exact same place as everyone else, only he is choosing to start the problem with his feet where other ascentionists (more naturally) choose to put their hands. Had Dai grabbed that underling with his hands and his feet below him, pulled onto the wall, and tossed a body part (foot or hand) to the triangle sloper feature, that would seem worthy of being dubbed a new start (to me).

    I’m sure that what Dai did is hard as hell and fully legit, but I find it unfortunate, or just sort of sad, really, that the community made a such a big deal out of a small hand switch that it spurred a guy to fly around the world to repeat something he has already done …

    I enjoyed the video, though, for the raw emotions and the really interesting movement. Like I said, I don’t really care what sequence people use but– contrary to the lessons you took away from this video–I feel like this clip ultimately shows the inherent absurdity of needing to start with the same hand holds as the FAist. Instead of just moving on with his life, and doing more new rad V16s elsewhere, he was shamed by these burdensome nitpicky ethics to re-do something he already did only this time with a kinda silly-looking start. that said, it appeared to be a really powerful experience for him, so if he is stoked, I guess I am too!

  8. momamma

    12. Jun, 2012

    I believe where Carlo starts in that vid is not actually where Dave started, but where Dai started when he thought he had originally done the climb. Carlo got his info for the start from Dai, before Dai realized his mistake. Dave’s starting position can be seen in the vid of PRob doing the climb in The Schengen Files . . . basically one left hand movement lower (possibly a right as well?).

    One question for B3, since you have been to Switzerland and have presumably seen the problem in real life. To me, it almost looks like Dai doesn’t really start any lower, he just starts matched on one side of a feature that Dave/Paul started compressing both sides of. Is this accurate, or is the start really farther ‘away from the finish’ than it appears on video?

  9. big poppa chosscrush

    12. Jun, 2012

    the sheriff may have allowed a prison break on this one… but he’s got to buy me a 6 pack before i’ll explain how.

  10. Chad

    12. Jun, 2012

    it sure looks like Carlo was starting from the same holds as Dai’s “incorrect” start. Regardless, Dai’s start is more logical (two hand on one hold) and simply cooler….

  11. B3

    12. Jun, 2012

    Yes sorry that was where Dai incorrectly started. I will respond, on B3 and on WWF on Thursday after my Calc Exam is finished. I must study or I will become severely distracted. Good debate though.

  12. B3

    12. Jun, 2012

    JE: Ok computer system went down for my homework and I am up. Here goes.
    AB: Thanks for clearing this up, man. That vid of Carlo also helps.But I gotta say, I’m not sure I agree with the logic here. Let me preface this comment by stating the fact that I don’t really care whatsoever about these rules and etiquettes, and I’m just killing time while I wait for you to play me back in Words With Friends, but I do find this interesting as a thought experiment.
    Let’s say if I do an FA of a sitstart, and intentionally start such that my hands are crossed up so I have to match and piano my fingers out before I can move up into the next sequence, and then claim that this match is what adds a grade of difficulty to the problem’s rating. no one in their right mind would ever start like this because it makes more sense to start with your hands switched to avoid having to do this heinous match. It would be a bit–I don’t know, tyrannical?–of me to expect everyone to do what I did if they, too, want to get “full credit” for their repeats of my sit start.

    B3: First of all, one of the reasons I think this system is a good one is that it provides an incentive for the FAist to pick the best possible start. Just like in sport climbing, there is an incentive to bolt a route well, and I think that is a good thing. Secondly, difficulty is irrelevant to my argument. However, if they choose to start in an inobvious way (like crossing their hands) and they gave it a name, then those that are interested in repeating the line should have to start as the FAist did. Deciding what is obvious and what is not obvious is more subjective. I can’t begin to tell you how many times climbers have complained about “awkward” DGs starts, but DG was there first (thus earning the right to start where he wants and to give it the name he wants) To Dave those starts are obvious. So who decides? The system I suggest provides a clear cut answer every single time, and if the point is to define bouldering or what it means to climb a problem, then clear cut and objective answers are what is needed.
    Conversely, the system suggested by others, that climbers can do whatever they want, start wherever they deem obvious, for example fails, because then there are no rules. People will have the right to claim that driving to the boulders is hard and awkward and that hiking is their anti-style and that they shouldn’t even have to bother trying the problem to log it on their 27crags scorecard. And what I see is that when climbers are allowed wiggle room they will take advantage of every loophole they can possible take advantage of. They will start three moves in, dab, not top out, the list goes on. I would much rather be a climber in a world with a few “awkward” starts than one in which people fudge their way up problems they didn’t do and make money doing so. Now that being said, I don’t care what people do* until they start making claims (particuliary in the public realm about having climbed Boulder x or Boulder y) A lot of people don’t like rules, but as far as I’m concerned those people should go play hacky sack or throw the frisbee.

    *as long as they don’t infringe on others, which by they way is a point Ramsey failed to cover in his chipping article, that it infringes dramatically on others freedom to climb the rock in the way it formed naturally. Perhaps the chalk put on the climb by the FA is an infringement but a minor one and it can be washed off, unlike chipping, I digress…

    AB: I sort of feel like that is what is going on here… To me it looks like Dai is starting in the exact same place as everyone else, only he is choosing to start the problem with his feet where other ascentionists (more naturally) choose to put their hands. Had Dai grabbed that underling with his hands and his feet below him, pulled onto the wall, and tossed a body part (foot or hand) to the triangle sloper feature, that would seem worthy of being dubbed a new start (to me).

    JE: Again with well defined rules about what constitutes an ascent it doesn’t matter what you or I thinks. We can always defer to the rules and if they are well thought out then they will work, and you won’t have to make a caveat about wether or not it was worthy to you. It just will be (founded in sound reasoning of course) I am also open to the idea that someone can present a better argument, I just haven’t heard it, but I am very willing to listen.

    AB: I’m sure that what Dai did is hard as hell and fully legit, but I find it unfortunate, or just sort of sad, really, that the community made a such a big deal out of a small hand switch that it spurred a guy to fly around the world to repeat something he has already done …
    I enjoyed the video, though, for the raw emotions and the really interesting movement. Like I said, I don’t really care what sequence people use but– contrary to the lessons you took away from this video–I feel like this clip ultimately shows the inherent absurdity of needing to start with the same hand holds as the FAist. Instead of just moving on with his life, and doing more new rad V16s elsewhere, he was shamed by these burdensome nitpicky ethics to re-do something he already did only this time with a kinda silly-looking start. that said, it appeared to be a really powerful experience for him, so if he is stoked, I guess I am too!

    JE: Every great book, every great equation, every great work of art is so because someone looked at the world a little more deeply, applied a little more of this “nitpickiness” to what they were doing and just did it better. To you the start seems silly, but I can say that about anything. How is it not equally silly to deface the rock with metal bolts, climb half way up some arbitrary sequence to an arbitrary ending point? Just because its what you happen to like it not silly? I think we all give meaning to our lives in whatever way we choose, and when people make something as small as six inches of a rock halfway around the world worth two years of their life I find that to be inspiring, hence the post. I am motivated by Dai’s commitment to do something better, especially in light of the fact that so many “pros” are ethically horrendous.

    Finally, I would love to talk to you anytime about this, if you’re ever in Boulder hit me up, lets grab dinner, a drink whatever! ok enough for now.

  13. g

    12. Jun, 2012

    @AB
    “Let’s say if I do an FA of a sitstart…”

    expecting everyone to repeat an ackward/illogical start doesn’t necessairly produce the intended result…

    one example: the sitstart to “fata morgana” and “satan i helvete” in fontainebleau. (same move).
    Apparently it is as hard as uncomfortable/weird, while a crouched “low” start (one move in) is much more logical/comfortable.
    Result: no repeats of the real sitstart, several repeats of the low start…

  14. vicken

    12. Jun, 2012

    Speaking of “nitpickiness”…it really doesn’t look to me like Dai climbs through Dave’s original start (left hand near left edge of triangular feature [as per P-Rob in Schengen] as opposed to central divot in triangular feature [as per Traversi start and “incorrect” photo in Dai’s vid]).

    I’m not trying to question Dai’s efforts, I’m questioning the logic, which maybe I don’t entirely understand.

    If you can’t claim a problem without starting with your hands exactly as the FAist started, then how can you claim problem X-low start if you don’t move your hands through exactly the start holds that the FAist used for problem X? Shouldn’t it rather be problem Y by the B3 definition?

    He should just claim a new problem and call it “world of two stories”.

  15. David

    12. Jun, 2012

    When I watched this film, and saw Dai’s emotional response, I assumed that he was really $#@*ing upset because he dabbed at the end after grabbing the jug, on a pad that he placed too close. At 14:06 you can hear him brush against it! But then the movie moves on like he’s done it.

    I’ve invalidated a few of my own ascents, and Ashley returned to spend two more days on her hardest ascent, after small dabs just as inconsequential as the one in the film. He clearly wasn’t going to fall off the jug, but it also seems obvious that he brushed the pad, though it can’t be seen. One of the clearly defined rules in bouldering is that you can’t touch anything, or be touched by anyone, during an ascent.

    It’s such an inspiring line, climbing, and film, that I actually hoped someone else would bring it up.

    What do you think about the dab in this context?

  16. martin

    12. Jun, 2012

    wow, how nice to read a debate like this and that clearly shows the difference between jens (8a.nu) who is just interested in provoking drama to increase hits ($$$) and jamie (and the others here) who think before they talk…

    its like jamie said: it’s about the few rules we have in bouldering: when you do a FA then its you who decides where to start – when somebody wants to make a repeat of that problem then he has to start the way the FA was done. no matter what. you are free to do something else but then you have climbed something else. so dai was as consequent as you can imagine and returned to finish it off properly.

    but why this “new” and “awkward” start?
    well because it was/is there. there was/is a way to start lower and it seemed like a nice challenge as well for him. i discussed that possibility of a low-start to STOTW with many strong guys and also with dai. the whole starting-sequence was one GREAT (but also painful) puzzle which dai solved with a lot of creativity. I (and others) tried to start “normal” with our feet down, thats also possible but super hard, and dai was just smarter. it was his perfect solution for that nice little and super hard puzzle.
    there are different possible concepts of starts in bouldering; you can start standing, or you can sit down (but then SIT), you can define the holds, and/or another concept : to may start lower. you can see that a lot in swizzy and in font as well (standing-start, sit-down, bas ). there is no need to discuss which is “better” or more “right”. they are just there and you can climb whatever you like.

    is it a lower start?
    watch dai’s movie and you see the undercling is (way) lower then the rail in front.

    and why dai (and i did as well) called the low start “more natural”?
    that is, as jamie has written, a “personal” thing. some (strong) guys i know think in the exact opposite way. but in which way you may turn it, it never does intend dave started “not natural” nor that dave’s start is less “worth” or dai’s more “worth” or vice versa.
    for me “natural” start means when you don’t need any explanation where to start, when you have an obvious starting hold. but there are other “natural start” concepts out there….

    first sit down (for me) was sitting down and grab the holds you get. that was what i did when i tried “the story of two worlds” (and started “wrong” like dai). in STOTW that is a bit tricky cause you have a rail left hand and right hand as well. so first i was bit puzzled. why not start at the holds you get from the sit? but dave had another “natural” and logical concept there; he started as far away from the ending as he could. so seen from that concept you don’t need to mark the holds as well, you take the ones furthest away. so which start is now “more natural”: both hands on the lowest hold available or the holds furthest away? what do you like more; vanilla- or strawberry ice-cream?! it’s a personal feeling not more not less, both starts make perfect sense in their concept. (may i should not have put that in my blog so prominent as that (may) provoked some missunderstandings).

    and i think its just not relevant at all here. there are now two starts: the original milstone from dave and its low(er) start from dai. both of them had an epic journey to go through, it means a lot to to them and both of them deserve the greatest respect for their ascents! that’s it, that’s all.

  17. kaiya bockino

    12. Jun, 2012

    The look on his face when he was about to top out gave me chills. So inspiring. It was refreshing to be able to see the process a climber goes through, not just the send. It also is a great message to all of us to step it up and be honest about what we have/have not done. I actually have a problem in Joe’s Valley I still need to go back and do because I found out I started in the wrong spot, even though it does not make the problem any harder, it’s just good to do. Thanks for the great post, Jamie! Still waiting for you to come visit us in Idaho.

  18. Jill

    12. Jun, 2012

    Thanks Martin for the really clear explaination about the problem and the naming of the problem.
    The movie is by far one of the best bouldering shorts I’ve seen so far.. really impressive.
    Most important thing for me is that Dai is so upfront about his achievement and his motivation for doing so. There is no claim about his way being the better way, just a documentation of it and how come. It is so nice for me to see a world class achievement being explained in such a personal way.

  19. B3

    12. Jun, 2012

    Martin, great post thanks for the insight. I’m too busy with studies to comment more, but I enjoyed reading your comment.

  20. […] Esta ascensão provocou algum sururu virtual, pelo grau fim de tabela V16, pela bizarra entrada, etc. Não vale a pena escrever muito sobre essas discussões, mas quem quiser ver o pior da net, pode ver aqui, quem quiser aprender algo, e todos precisamos sempre de aprender, pode ver aqui. […]

  21. Gloomis

    13. Jun, 2012

    I find it interesting that no one has questioned the V16 rating. How does a party trip high foot start make a V15 a V16?

  22. momamma

    14. Jun, 2012

    Gloomis:

    1. It isn’t a party trick if it’s the easiest way to do the problem.

    2. Are you really asking how the addition of more hard moves to a boulder problem would bump the grade up?

  23. Todd

    14. Jun, 2012

    Thank you Jamie, Andrew, and Martin for the most reasonable explanation I’ve seen as to the importance of basic simple understandings (or rules if you prefer) and the way they they are perceived.

    I’ve always taken the stance of whatever you can reach from sitting is on for a sit start and whatever you can reach from standing is on for a stand start, and I’ve always been puzzled by why b3 put so much importance on which holds were used. Martin’s comment about “so first i was bit puzzled. why not start at the holds you get from the sit? but dave had another “natural” and logical concept there; he started as far away from the ending as he could” really struck a chord with me and helped me get why you would start in a different way.
    So again – Thanks!

  24. B3

    14. Jun, 2012

    Todd, one of the reasons I don’t like the “reach what you can off the ground” approach is that sometimes, on short problems a tall climber could sit on the ground and reach past the crux. Or a tall climber could sit, establish a problem on a high jug that a shorter climber couldn’t reach by sitting on the ground. This lack of discrimination is why picking a specific starting hold approach is better.

  25. Todd

    14. Jun, 2012

    I get the basic reasons for it, but I can assure you that I’ve been on problems where just trying to get into position to start is the crux for me simply because I’m bigger than the person who originally did it. Therefore you’ve now discriminated against the bigger guy. Why should the smaller/shorter person be given the benefit?
    Either way the problem ends up being of a different grade for each based on morphology, which is OK. It just like the climbing movements themselves. If I’m taller can I skip a move that the FA used? If I do, can I still say I climbed xyz problem. Is xyz problem the name of a sequence or the name of a line up a piece of rock? If it’s the rock, then you start standing or sitting. If its the sequence, then you better follow the same sequence.
    It all becomes such a semantic mess in this way it’s ridiculous.

  26. B3

    14. Jun, 2012

    Certainly there are moves which are more challenging for short or tall people, but if the interest is in defining bouldering, the better answer is that everyone has the same starting holds and the same finish. If the rules give climbers the option to start anywhere, they will be justified in starting higher and higher and doing less. Requiring everyone to start on the same holds as the FAist eliminates that issue, and gives better understanding to those interested in repeating a specific problem, as defined by name, start and finish by the FAist. Rock climbing is what is done in between the start and the finish, and unless specified (a contrivance), it should be fair game to figure out the beta that is best for you.

  27. Todd

    14. Jun, 2012

    So it’s OK to force a move based on starting holds, but not any other moves? I gotta be honest, in my mind if you have to “define the starting holds” it’s already contrived. Granted, pretty much all bouldering, and climbing, is in some way contrived……
    Let’s test your “rule” against a common example: Midnight Lightning. Do you know where Ron Kauk started it? I don’t, but I know he started standing up and climbed the same general path that I took, and I’m pretty damn sure he did the same crux as I did, so I’m pretty sure I climbing midnight lightning regardless of wether I started on the exact same holds as Mr. Kauk. Are you 100% certain you started in the same place as he did? I recall there being several options for your starting hands, so I have no idea if I started the same. If myself or other didn’t, does that mean we didn’t climb Midnight Lightning? If you think so, then we have a very different perspective, and if not, then the “RULE” doesn’t stand. Or is it only a rule when the first move is the crux?
    We can finish this offline if you’d like, unless others would like to chime in.

  28. B3

    15. Jun, 2012

    Todd, of course bouldering is contrived. That’s what we are trying to do, define the contrivance. I haven’t done Midnight Lightning so I couldn’t say. You say you’re pretty sure that you’ve done the problem, but by starting where the FAist started you know for sure, every single time. It eliminates any and all doubt and that is one of the reasons its a good system. Ron Kauk is still alive, you could write him an email and ask him. I think he is on Facebook, maybe that would be another way to get a hold of him. I bet he’d be happy to answer. And today, when nearly everything is filmed and many climbers own iPhones, it’s not hard to know. It’s always better to try and know and ask as many people as possible. I would ask if I was unsure, but I have put my faith in a good guidebook author to know as well and share the info with everyone else. Just because you aren’t sure, and it would be painful to have to go back and do it properly, doesn’t justify starting in the wrong place or calling it good when it’s not. I did a V11 in Connecticut only to find out later when I was back in CO 2000 miles away, that I hadn’t started where the FAist started. Granted, every single subsequent ascentionist started where I started, however I took the problem off my scorecard. I don’t think this is unreasonable. I really want to do problems, and I really want to add them to my ticklist, but only if they belong there.

    Again, if the start is not defined or ambiguous, then people can literally start anywhere. I would assume you’re a reasonable guy and aren’t trying to get away with anything and you climb because you love it and if Ron were standing there and told you where it started you would probably start there. However, many climbers are not so reasonable, and again, if there is going to be an attempt made to define what it is we are doing, or climbing, it is imperative to have some rules.

    I think much of the sport of bouldering is the problem solving in getting from point a to point b. I would prefer problems that need minimal contriving, and it would be better if the only contrivance was the starting hold.

    And finally, I am always up to talk about this stuff! Thanks for posting, I am glad you’re interested. I need to come back to Alaska soon so I can do the second ascent of the Fairangel Arete Project from wherever you start it from this summer! I’ll be sure to ask :) Ha! Cheers, enjoy your season and keep the updates coming on your blog! I really like them.

  29. todd

    15. Jun, 2012

    “Again, if the start is not defined or ambiguous, then people can literally start anywhere.” I agree, but the level of required definition is what we disagree on. Disagreement is good because it breeds discussion and hence understanding, at least amongst civilized people.

    “I would assume you’re a reasonable guy and aren’t trying to get away with anything and you climb because you love it”
    That’s a big assumption :)

    “I need to come back to Alaska soon so I can do the second ascent of the Fairangel Arete Project from wherever you start it from this summer!” It’s still waiting, and may continue to wait if you hurry. The Barstool is my first real project to work this year… My projects list has grown from about 8 at the beginning of last summer to over 50 now, and I keep finding more…

  30. cj

    19. Jun, 2012

    :

    One thing needs to be understood about Dai’s, or in this case, everyone’s cultural back ground. It wasn’t only about creating a harder start to the boulder problem. It was about a warrior traveling to an old mentor in hopes of making a 100% legit retaliation that would give him the peaceful mindset of satisfaction and pride. He was battling against the puzzle that was previously solved but with only one piece missing…the actual placement of the pieces. Instead of defeating a respectable foe who had not changed since the last time he was in its’ presence, he allowed his opponent to level up (as he had during his absence) and created an epic battle of will and determination. He added more history to something that had taught other warriors in the past, and to that we thank you Dai. May the warriors keep unlocking the next level, and by doing so, giving us the ability to see what possibilities can be achieved on mother nature’s obstacles.

  31. DaveH

    21. Jun, 2012

    @cj : Well said. That’s what the video portrays perfectly.

  32. big poppa chosscrush

    21. Jun, 2012

    dead raccoon should start sitting, matched on the crimps with a super low start matched on the tufa, but it does not, which means that it is dead to me, raccoon or not.

    jamie’s desire to balance pure objectivity with mid-problem freedom makes logical sense, but does not in my mind prohibit blood money or the lime wall from having stand starts, as long as starting from something lesser is clearly disclosed.

    i propose: “blood money cheat start which is more better”; “no more greener grasses cheat start which is more better”; “some conn. problem cheat start which is more better.”

    assis? bas? CSWMB?

  33. B3

    21. Jun, 2012

    The only reason you do something illogical is just to justify your obsession with putting more on your scorecard!! Ha! I know your not so devious ways wobbling goat.

  34. Nice

    24. Jun, 2012

    It does seem probable that the noise at 14:06 was a tiny dab of the butt…. But I wouldn’t think of telling the guy he has to do it again to have sent it! As if repeating the line wasn’t already beating a dead horse…. But then again, I don’t really agree with all of B3’s and other people’s rules all the time. I do not have the goal of making bouldering an objective activity, either.
    Beautifully made video, awesome climb!

  35. David

    30. Jun, 2012

    Thanks Nice for responding to my comment! I was just trying to get a conversation started, and this video makes the point I wanted to make better than a posted argument ever could. I’m beginning to think that there are times when a dab matters, and times when it doesn’t. If it’s clear that the small dab happened where there was no chance you’d fall off, and also clear that the dab didn’t help with an ascent, I feel the ascent is valid. It is much better style to climb a problem without a dab, and there are a few problems like Choir Boys , or Kind Traverse with the low ending, where not dabbing is the crux of the problem, and therefore should not be allowed. But I feel that the idea that an ascent is invalidated if you touch anything during the ascent gets a little ridiculous sometimes.

Leave a Reply