Ethics

Posted on 25. Jun, 2012 by B3 in News

I encourage all of the readers of this blog to check out this video. It begins slowly, but soon enough it will become clear why I have reposted it here. It’s wonderful to see this kind of debate going on in the famed forest of Fontainebleau, and to hear from some different points of view. I would tend to agree with guidebook author Bart Van Raaj, but either way, it’s wonderful that these kinds of topics are getting more attention, and it’s obvious that those who care greatly about the sport are thinking about these issues! Enjoy.

69 Responses to “Ethics”

getrealson

25. Jun, 2012

sounds like a bunch of jealous french climbers to me.
Greasy Enchies

25. Jun, 2012

I thought this was going to be incredibly boring and I would be mad at myself for wasting my time. I was even tempted to give you shit about it, but low and behold it’s pretty interesting. Thanks.
Todd

25. Jun, 2012

What exactly do you agree with him on? It seems like he just states the situation, but doesn’t actually take a stand on it. Should the higher start count as the FA and be shown in the guidebook as such?
I would say no.
B3

26. Jun, 2012

I would tend agree with Bart’s statement “Everyone is free to do what they want. But I believe if you want to climb a specific boulder with a specific name and grade, then you have to do what that specific name and grade represent”

I agree with that much more than what Lucas and Joseph say. They’re arguments aren’t clear. I guess Lucas’ argument is that if a climb is in Font, and a Font local sees it first, then that local defines where it starts? I disagree with that completely. Or sit starts are motivated by ego? It would be hard to argue that stand starts weren’t motivated by the same ego, or what about when girls climb FAs? How does that play in to Josephs “alpha male argument”? I could go on and on.

And I think in this instance Dave is completely legit in what he has done. As is Vincent.

So Todd, I’m not sure if I understand your argument. You think higher starts shouldn’t count as FAs when lower starts are added? For example, Better Eat You Wheaties shouldn’t be a problem now that Crown of Aragorn or Better Build Your Woodies exists? Or that The Island doesn’t exist and we should only consider The Big Island? is that your argument? I’d love some clarification!
todd

26. Jun, 2012

This comes back to a difference in philosophy. I believe that problems are sit or stand starts and that anything else is simply contrived. If you take the example of how Dave starts The Island, without video very few people would do a “lean back on your elbow start”. Why did Dave not start lower? It’s the logical place to start as its the furthest from where the boulder finishes. This isn’t to judge Dave, It’s a judgement of the ridiculousness of the whole thing. I’m as guilty as anyone.
As far as better eat your wheaties vs, the other two, it’s been over 15 years since I was last in hueco, so I don’t think better build your woodies had even been done, and I honestly didn’t look at Crown well enough to say anything.
B3

26. Jun, 2012

If people are going to make claims about climbing things and use those climbs as benchmarks e.g. “I did Midnight Lightning” or use ascents to earn money, “I climbed V14, give me money Prana” or even simply because they care about doing something in a standardized way, it is imperative that we define what it is we are doing.

It is more ambiguous (less definitive) if you allow the stand start/sit start argument and this is why: If a taller climber (I have a friend who is 6’4″ with a plus 6 and has climbed V12) sits on the ground they can reach literally feet beyond what a shorter climber can reach without having even pulled on. It would be inaccurate to say those two climbers had climbed the same problem, because they are starting in two different places. By starting where the FAist starts, you can definitively determine where the problem starts, and objectively repeat it every time.

Dave was first so he determines where the problem starts. When climbers have the freedom to start where ever they want (after the FA has been climbed) and justify it by saying it is awkward (which is highly subjective-I would argue there are no awkward climbs, only awkward climbers) or inobvious (also subjective) they will have the right to change the start and they will (almost always to make it easier) This subjective system has been demonstrated to fail, time and again because it gives climbers the freedom to do less and claim they have done the same.

Secondly, Dave probably didn’t start lower because he wasn’t strong enough to climb from lower. The same could be said about most hard problems. They would start lower if the climber could start from lower. Obviousness is fairly subjective. Dave has a lot of experience, much more than I, and generally I would defer to him as to where to start, although not with out questioning his reasoning. Almost always he has a reason, from my experience.

Finally, a climber taller than Dave could start sitting, on the rock, and grab the holds Dave started on. A shorter climber would have to start any number of feet lower because they couldn’t reach the starting holds in a sitting position from the rock and would have to sit on the ground.

I’m still not sure what your last argument is? Do you think sit starts should eliminate an established stand start?
Andy

26. Jun, 2012

This begs the question as to whether or not a project can be defined… I suggest it can. Font locals defined the big island project by cleaning, chalking, and trying moves. In the end, Vincent sent the defined project, but by then Dave had been able to climb the higher portion of it. I took away from the video that the locals were a touch disappointed Dave strayed from what they had already defined as a project. However, I feel both ascents are legit considering the higher start took place first. Both starts should be considered, but perhaps one would get more stars then the other.
B3

26. Jun, 2012

Andy, why do the locals get to decide where the problem starts? And who or what defines who a local is? How do we determine whether or not someone is “local” enough to decide where a project should start? Again, this is an extremely ambiguous way to determine where a problem should start. Using where the FAist does is not.
TK

26. Jun, 2012

Interesting video and questions…

It just sounds like the project had a pretty accepted start and finish already, so in the realm of:

“Everyone is free to do what they want. But I believe if you want to climb a specific boulder with a specific name and grade, then you have to do what that specific name and grade represent”

A problem(The Island) was climbed…but was it the project?
Matt

26. Jun, 2012

I think the real point is the sit start has yet to be climbed and until someone does The Island/Big Island from their butt on the ground, not a rock, not standing to reach holds at full extension, the boulder hasn’t been completed.

I feel like any problem is done in stages, or at least cutting edge. Terremer wasn’t sent before Terre de Sienne right? Lucid Dreaming wasn’t sent before Rastaman Vibration correct?

When you have a boulder, you climb it from the lowest point “you” can climb it. If it happens to be the first time someone sends it, cool. I think once the lower start is unlocked, that becomes the new problem and there is an asterisk variation saying if you start here, its a V14. Example: Big Island 8C, *Variation The Island 8B+.

Again, no one has sent the island from a complete sit, therefore, does it really matter? Dave Sent the Island from in my mind, as close to the “ground” as possible (albeit on a rock) where the big island was sent by someone standing and reaching at full extension to reach almost the same holds Dave used. Sure it is one/two moves lower and deserves credit. Its progress. But I’m not going to chastise anyone for their vision whether it deviates from the “project” which still hasn’t been done.
DK

26. Jun, 2012

Two different problems. Two different starts, different names, different first ascentionists. I see no reason why one should ‘erase’ the other. Climb whichever one makes sense to you. Interestingly enough, even though Lucas Menegatti appears to not really approve of Dave’s start, he claimed and reported his ascent of The Island before doing The Big Island.
todd

26. Jun, 2012

“If people are going to make claims about climbing things and use those climbs as benchmarks e.g. “I did Midnight Lightning” or use ascents to earn money, “I climbed V14, give me money Prana” or even simply because they care about doing something in a standardized way, it is imperative that we define what it is we are doing.”

Jamie,
This goes right to the heart of how we see climbing differently. Personally, I find it ridiculous that any climber gets paid based on how “hard” they climb. The climbers I see as being professional and ambassadors for the sport have the integrity and class not to “cheat” and thus don’t need some set of arbitrary rules to follow. Their internal compass points towards doing things in a better manner and style, and they would much rather not send than to cheat. This is an entirely different discussion that should really get its own post.

I’m happy with climbing Midnight Lightning because based on my ethics, I did climb it. When I was working it, there were probably 5-10 other people there as well. Not one of them said a single word about what holds the FA started on. In my first 15 years of climbing, I cannot recall anyone saying a problem started from two specific holds. I remember many discussions about where to start from, but not once did anyone say, “You have to start here to climb problem X because the FA started there.”

You also keep coming back to this:
“It is more ambiguous (less definitive) if you allow the stand start/sit start argument and this is why: If a taller climber (I have a friend who is 6’4? with a plus 6 and has climbed V12) sits on the ground they can reach literally feet beyond what a shorter climber can reach without having even pulled on. It would be inaccurate to say those two climbers had climbed the same problem, because they are starting in two different places.”

I’ve said before that I agree that they are climbing something with a very different grade, which happens all the time due to body type, but I would argue that they are climbing the same problem. The reason for that is that I think of the problem as being the solution to moving from a general point A (sitting or standing on the ground) to a general point B (standing on top of the boulder), and sometimes that grade will be different for different people. That’s the nature of climbing. If that super tall person can reach through the crux and still wants to call it v-whatever, then that’s where there’s an issue, but that issue exists at every stage of the problem from the start to the end. So why should the start be treated differently?
Stephen

26. Jun, 2012

I think that the stand is certainly a legitimate start regardless of when it was established, as is the sit. Two problems which come to mind are The Dali and Mental Pollution (both at area a at Evans). Both have sit starts which are a grade or two harder then the stand. The stands are for sure not as good problems, but they allow climbers who may not be able to climb the sit downs to do a section of an amazing problem. Although the sit is obviously a better problem, its existence in no way invalidates the stand or visa versa.
B3

26. Jun, 2012

“Personally, I find it ridiculous that any climber gets paid based on how “hard” they climb. The climbers I see as being professional and ambassadors for the sport have the integrity and class not to “cheat” and thus don’t need some set of arbitrary rules to follow. Their internal compass points towards doing things in a better manner and style, and they would much rather not send than to cheat. This is an entirely different discussion that should really get its own post.”

God forbid I write all of the flagrant and offensive things I have seen “professional” climbers do. I think many people would be very surprised. I think their “pro climbers” internal compasses tend to be not very good, and that’s why they have come so far. I’ve heard the statement “If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying” Don’t be so naive to think that pro climbers have high standards. Certainly some do, but many don’t. This is based on what I have seen at the boulders from some of the best.

Your same argument could be used about bolting when that first began. You could say, “I’ve never seen a need to bolt a rock and I’ve been climbing 15 years”, when now it has become totally acceptable. The sport is changing and clearly (evidenced by the video) I’m not the only one thinking or advocating for this.

The start should be treated differently because if we are going to say for example: This is The Nothing and it starts on X hold and Y hold, then you know that everyone who does the Nothing started there. And if I want to repeat the Nothing I know for certain that I have. The system I suggest shows clear certainty to repeat a problem, while the system you suggest does not. What if I came up, started three moves in because I thought your start was inobvious, and called it good? Would that qualify as an ascent?
Andy

26. Jun, 2012

@b3
I never said the locals had the authority to determine where a problem starts or not. I was merely observing this to be the case in the video.

The FAist has every right to start a problem wherever they damn well please. But that doesn’t mean an ascent of a particular project took place
Matt

26. Jun, 2012

Jamie, I would like to hear your thoughts on “Mote in God’s Eye” and the subsequent lower start “Butterfinger”. I feel like it is the same situation as The Island albeit newer.

In this instance, Dave found the problem (I’m assuming he found the line. I don’t know if someone walked by it before him,) did the problem, and Nalle started I think two moves lower? However, to his admission on his scorecard at the time of the send, I believe he commented that the moves weren’t hard but it made for the full line.

Since this problem is more close to home for you being in Lincoln Lake and more recently established, would your opinion differ slightly?
Stephen

26. Jun, 2012

I absolutely agree Jamie. I also agree with your point regarding “official starts.” I’ve run across climbers standing on pads to reach the better holds, doing the remainder of the route then counting it as a send. While this is obviously wrong, even if we have an established/stranded start the logging of assents will still be on the honor system, so it really all boils back down to the climbers “internal compass.”
B3

26. Jun, 2012

matt. the regionality makes no difference. Dave did the FA of MIGE and Nalle added a lower start. two problems. End of story. Nalle’s opinion that it is the “full line” is subjective.
Connor G

26. Jun, 2012

I think the starting holds of a boulder must be honored in order to claim an ascent. I’ve been trying to think of a sports analogy, and keep coming back to sprinting. In sprinting there is a start and a finish, both of which are crucial to a race’s legitimacy. Everyone’s gotta start in the same place. A racer can’t start 5 meters ahead, finish first, then claim a victory. He/she would of course be disqualified first. Some racers would have an advantage to start, i.e. those with top-notch acceleration, just as some climbers have a similar advantage, i.e. those who may ‘fit’ into a starting position better. It is what it is.

It’s funny you mentioned The Nothing Jamie. I started in the right spot and ended in the right spot, but I totally botched the crux moves and made it harder than it should have been – felt like solid V9 to me. Oh well, I went from a defined Point A to a defined Point B, therefore ascending The Nothing V8.
B3

27. Jun, 2012

Great comments everyone. Thanks for sharing Connor. I think your analogy is close in many regards. Perhaps an adventure race would be closer as there would be more freedom to do whatever in between A and B? Glad to know there are others out there who care or are interested!
climbnskate

27. Jun, 2012

I think Dave’s start absolutely counts and there just mad that there uber proj wasn’t done by a local. The logical start point would be matched on the rail which neither of them did so if I climb it from matched it will erase there ascents. The whole leaning on his elbow is them reaching for something to discredit him with. Others have climbed it with Dave’s start its not just the logical start for him. Point being start which ever makes sense to you take the grade that was assigned to it and don’t put other people down for not doing it your way or try to discredit them.
Narc

27. Jun, 2012

In the case of something like the Dali, what do we make of stand starts that are added after the sit? Don’t many people start that problem one move lower than the FA did now as well? In theory that is a separate problem but I think in practice many people start the sit either way and call it the same thing, no?
Andy

27. Jun, 2012

Which line gets more stars?
Andy

27. Jun, 2012

Also, I like sprinting/running analogy. But that means we have to apply the same standards to finishes as well. Nobody would say you finished a race if you stopped short one foot from the end. Extended that, climbers who don’t complete the 5.7 slab of Whispers arguably haven’t sent. Or people who drop off the rail on Mojo. If the FAist topped out, so do you in order to claim a repeat….
Michael Rathke

27. Jun, 2012

@getrealson
“sounds like a bunch of jealous french climbers to me.”

you missed the whole point of the video

“in the end its not about winning”
Todd

27. Jun, 2012

So which is more important to you: starting holds or starting position. Or are they equally important? If something is a sit start do you have to be sitting AND use the defined start holds? What if you can’t reach the defined start holds? Is it OK to pad stack? What if you can reach the holds, but pad stack anyway? Is that cheating? What if someone physically can’t reach the same two starting holds as the FA? Does that mean they can’t climb that problem no matter what? What if they start on different holds, but still climb the same line? Can they claim a new First Ascent?

I understand you feel a line has to be drawn, but to me defining the starting holds is a fairly arbitrary line and seems to me to be really unimportant on most problems (as are any other ones). I don’t see the argument for defining starting holds to be any more persuasive than the argument for sit/stand. I also understand that on certain problems (low traverses, caves, etc.) there is a greater need for understanding where a problem starts, but even then, I’d say tell me where to sit my ass down, and I’ll start there.

“What if I came up, started three moves in because I thought your start was inobvious, and called it good? Would that qualify as an ascent?”
I would say that yes this is an ascent. If you published it in some rag or news site and claimed to have climbed it at the same grade, I may have a problem with it(assuming you skipped the crux), but I would certainly say that: You ascended a problem that follows the same chunk of stone which was name XYZ.

Taking Matt’s example of MIGE and Butterfinger: I would argue that if Nalle didn’t fundamentally change the grade or nature of the problem, he didn’t climb a new line. Sure he started lower, but I wouldn’t say he did a new FA and I certainly would never consider giving it a new name. At that rate, I could find a stand start v13 with jugs lower down, climb the stand and call it a FA, then start two moves lower, call it another v13 FA, start a further 2 moves lower and call it another FA, etc. I would hope that this doesn’t happen, but obviously it does.

To me the name of the problem, the essence of the problem is related to the rock that you move over, not the starting holds, or even which specific holds you use.

To each their own I guess as long as we’re open about it.
B3

27. Jun, 2012

Starting holds should be the only thing that matters. Again, it is less subjective than standing/sitting and if the goal is to define something then it is better to be less subjective.

So which is more important to you: starting holds or starting position. Or are they equally important? I

As I have said a hundred times, if you use the standstart sit start method, then a tall climber can start in a different place and climb less then what the FAist climbed. They would actually climb less distance, from a different place. Claiming that they had done the same thing is simply inaccurate. I’m interested in accuracy. Again, that argument allows a level of subjectivity that gives bouldering less definition, not more.

f something is a sit start do you have to be sitting AND use the defined start holds?

If the starting holds are defined the stand start/sit start issue is moot. Do what ever you’d like.

What if you can’t reach the defined start holds? Is it OK to pad stack?

In regards to stacking pads again it’s moot. Defining a boulder problem by the holds the FAist used so clearly defines it that you can repeat the problem every single time, unquestionably.

What if you can reach the holds, but pad stack anyway?

A rare case, but I would do what the FAist did.

Is that cheating? What if someone physically can’t reach the same two starting holds as the FA?

I think it’s ok to stack pads to reach a hold you couldn’t normally reach from the ground, if the FAist was so much taller than you. This is a rare instance, but as long as someone starts on the starting holds then yes its fine.

Does that mean they can’t climb that problem no matter what?

Sometime people are too weak, and they can’t climb the problem no matter what. Tough. That’s life.

What if they start on different holds, but still climb the same line? Can they claim a new First Ascent?

If they didn’t start on the same holds as the FAist then they haven’t done what the FAist defined as the problem and no they haven’t done it.

I’ve answered your questions, now answer mine.

How do you know if you’ve repeated a boulder problem?
How do you define a boulder problem?
If the start isn’t defined clearly am I allowed to start anywhere I deem obvious?
How do you define obvious?
Is your definition the same for everyone? If not, why not?
If the FAist doesn’t define where the problem starts, why can’t everyone just start anywhere they want?
Imagine a problem (there are hundreds) that you can reach the lip (where the problem is easy) standing on the ground, but the starting holds are too high off the ground to reach them sitting, how do you define the start of this problem? If it’s a stand start why can’t I just walk to the lip and top out?
B3

27. Jun, 2012

@salo ever problem should finish on the highest point of the boulder, but that is a little trickier to define. good to bring up the finish, its important as well.
B3

27. Jun, 2012

Narc, I don’t think people should go back after a lower start has been established and climb something less and rename it. They are taking away from the FAist. In regards to the Dali, Ben did the FA from a gaston and a crimp. I did the second just started matched on the gaston, yes one move lower. I think I mention this in the guide.
B3

27. Jun, 2012

One last update. If they start on different holds that are higher, then no, not an FA. If they start on different holds at the same height no not an FA. IF they start on different holds that are lower, then yes FA. They have added to the climb. It may not be good to start on miserable crimps just below a jug, but the problem will be what it is, two miserable crimp moves to a jug.
jabroni

27. Jun, 2012

I agree with most of what Jamie’s said.

Stacking pads – fine. I climb regularly with people 6-8 inches shorter than me, who can’t reach the same (any, often) holds from a sit as I can. Should they be told not to do the problem simply because it requires another pad underneath them? Who’s going to listen if you tell them that? Yeah, this uber-classic famous boulder problem is great but sorry shortmo, hands off.

BTW, I’m glad to see we haven’t gotten into the asinine debate 8a.nu hosted recently where someone was arguing you should only be allowed to have ‘regulation 4 inch pads’ under your arse.

Agree someone shouldn’t be going back and climbing a shorter climb and renaming it – unless it goes in a different direction i.e. traverses left/right instead of straight up. However people will often want to record a stand start to a hard sit for consolation purposes (at least I got some of it done)…

At the same time, recording new names for two moves further down always seemed a bit silly to me. Just call it low, sit, lying down start, start from 40 metres away and finished a completely different boulder problem…

Speaking of which, it’s hard to care if some pro did a V6 and claimed a V15. People are going to do that as long as there’s money involved.
Paul N

28. Jun, 2012

B3,
I am an advocate of starting where it is obvious to do so. You claim that obviousness is subjective to the individual, and therefore it’s better to make a rule so that everyone starts in the same place. Obviousness however, is not subjective, it is inter-subjective, an agreement among individuals, or a consensus. If 7 of 10 people agree on where the most obvious place to start a boulder problem is, then there is a consensus on where to start. Grades are the same way. Grades are not objective, nor are they subjective (unless unrepeated). If the FAist suggest a grade for a boulder problem, and future ascentionists disagree, then it changes. That is how it should be, since grades make the most sense as a consensus among repeaters. Why should the start of a boulder problem be different? Why can we not evolve how a boulder problem is started to suit what the community thinks is the most obvious way?

Your answer to this seems to be that people are dishonest without clearly defined rules. That is true, people will cheat. In fact, people will cheat regardless. It’s also true that you can still call people out for doing something you disagree with, with or without rules. You could also say it’s a matter of respect for the FAist. Having done FAs myself, if I start something in a way that is in-obvious, and people correct my transgression, fine! Better than people blindly following forever in my idoicy!

There are also disadvantages of your rule on where to start. If a climb is first done in a way that most people think is not obvious, then continuing to start in that place detracts from the quality of a line, and the experience of the people who climb it. In my opinion, these qualities are two of the most important in bouldering, and far outweigh any advantages you might get from forcing people to a strict rule. Of course people can still do what they want, but the recognition of the quality of a line is about the whole community, and there is something important that is lost when a great line “must” be started in an awkward or in-obvious way. There are plenty of examples of this, which I could list if you don’t believe me.

In some cases an FA was done according to a certain ethic of the time. Why not allow the start to evolve along with changing ethics? Or generally, why not allow a start to change for any reason that people can come to an agreement on. People are still free to do it the way it was originally done, and they can even (and do) make that claim. “I did it the OG way”. Why should it be the reverse, “I did it from where it made more sense, but not the OG way so I didn’t really do it”. Neither is inherently better or worse (more objective != better), it’s just about what climbers prefer, and what is best for the sport as a whole.

I should also note, I would advocate that all obvious starts make sense (although they do not need a new name). The Dali stand for example, why not? But perhaps most people disagree with me…
Stephen

28. Jun, 2012

what about boulders where this base has been dug out, to reveal lower starts after the establishment of the higher climbs?
B3

28. Jun, 2012

P “I am an advocate of starting where it is obvious to do so. You claim that obviousness is subjective to the individual, and therefore it’s better to make a rule so that everyone starts in the same place. Obviousness however, is not subjective, it is inter-subjective, an agreement among individuals, or a consensus. If 7 of 10 people agree on where the most obvious place to start a boulder problem is, then there is a consensus on where to start.”

B3: This doesn’t make sense. So if 7 out of 10 people decide chipping is ok, then it is because the consensus rules? Based on your argument it would be. Or if 7 out of 10 people decide that Lincoln Lake should be bulldozed to make a golf course it, it should be? I would never ever agree to that, even if I were the third to last person on earth, but it would be so, because the consensus says so. Also, the consensus can change over time. How are we to define what it means to do something if the start keeps getting higher and higher (or changing all the time) and people keep climbing less and less (which is what they typically do) and claiming to have done the same? Again, that is inaccurate.

P: “Grades are the same way. Grades are not objective, nor are they subjective (unless unrepeated). If the FAist suggest a grade for a boulder problem, and future ascentionists disagree, then it changes. That is how it should be, since grades make the most sense as a consensus among repeaters. Why should the start of a boulder problem be different? Why can we not evolve how a boulder problem is started to suit what the community thinks is the most obvious way?”

B3: We don’t have an objective way to measure how hard it is to climb a rock, but I wish we did, and if we did I would be shocked if every climber didn’t use it. Perhaps we should let runners subjectively judge whether or not they ran fast? Or let them decide if it was the hardest race they’ve ever run. Nearly every runner I know uses a watch to judge their times and for those involved in money, sponsorship and making claims about what they’ve done it would be unheard of to not use a watch or clock. In fact it wouldn’t be allowed. I don’t know why climbing would be different, yet it seems that’s what you’re advocating? In contrast to a grade, which is subjective, there is however a way to know where a boulder problem starts. And that is by where the FAist (who created the problem in the first place giving a name (most often) to what they’ve done) So there is an objective measure and for some odd reason some climbers are resistant to this.

P: “Your answer to this seems to be that people are dishonest without clearly defined rules. That is true, people will cheat. In fact, people will cheat regardless. It’s also true that you can still call people out for doing something you disagree with, with or without rules. You could also say it’s a matter of respect for the FAist. Having done FAs myself, if I start something in a way that is in-obvious, and people correct my transgression, fine! Better than people blindly following forever in my idiocy!”

B3: But again the difference with the system I suggest is that I can call someone out with a reason as to why they cheated. The system you suggest doesn’t even allow that! So I agree people will cheat in both systems, however I will have logical basis for calling them out and a reason for why they did or didn’t do something. With the system you suggest they will always be able to weasel out of things if they can just say, “The FAist was wrong, I’m right, I’ll start higher”. In fact why wouldn’t everyone do that on every climb? There is no incentive to do anything but. I agree that my system puts an emphasis an where the FAist starts. That is my intention! People try very hard not to bolt bad routes because they get a bad reputation. The same would happen with climbing if more emphasis were put on the FA and in the end it would leave more problems with better starts.

P” There are also disadvantages of your rule on where to start. If a climb is first done in a way that most people think is not obvious, then continuing to start in that place detracts from the quality of a line, and the experience of the people who climb it. In my opinion, these qualities are two of the most important in bouldering, and far outweigh any advantages you might get from forcing people to a strict rule. Of course people can still do what they want, but the recognition of the quality of a line is about the whole community, and there is something important that is lost when a great line “must” be started in an awkward or in-obvious way. There are plenty of examples of this, which I could list if you don’t believe me.”

B3: Quality is pretty subjective and even more so is the experience of other people. There are no awkward moves or starts. Rocks are not awkward. People are weak. Climbers are awkward. I can’t think of one example that isn’t that way. Rocks aren’t inherently awkward. They are just rocks. Or just things we call rocks. Climbing outside isn’t intended to be anything. Complaining that a classic problem is ruined by an awkward start is just your own concern. I’ve always felt that rock climbing was about stepping up to challenges, not whining that something doesn’t fit my style or hurts or feels awkward.

P: In some cases an FA was done according to a certain ethic of the time. Why not allow the start to evolve along with changing ethics? Or generally, why not allow a start to change for any reason that people can come to an agreement on. People are still free to do it the way it was originally done, and they can even (and do) make that claim. “I did it the OG way”. Why should it be the reverse, “I did it from where it made more sense, but not the OG way so I didn’t really do it”. Neither is inherently better or worse (more objective != better), it’s just about what climbers prefer, and what is best for the sport as a whole.

B3: Why not allow the mile to evolve into something less? Why not use people opinions about who ran the fastest race? Your system is so flawless it’s surprising that no other sporting event uses it, when given the chance to use an objective measuring field and clock. I can think of no sporting event that doesn’t strive for objectivity as much as possible. Even in figure skating (which is subjectively judged) the skaters a required to complete several objectives and everything is done to be as objective as possible. Umpires and refs are the bane of professional sports, and close calls are always deferred to slow motion cameras from several angles. Why do you think that is? Objectivity in competition is always better. And if you are out trying to repeat certain lines, with an 8a scorecard, posting on this site you are certainly a competitor (which I think is awesome and I welcome you!)

B3: Finally, why not just say, I did it from where the FAist did. End of story. End of debate. You have an answer every single time. And this debate is over.

P” I should also note, I would advocate that all obvious starts make sense (although they do not need a new name). The Dali stand for example, why not? But perhaps most people disagree with me…
Paul N

28. Jun, 2012

B3: This doesn’t make sense. So if 7 out of 10 people decide chipping is ok, then it is because the consensus rules? Based on your argument it would be. Or if 7 out of 10 people decide that Lincoln Lake should be bulldozed to make a golf course it, it should be? I would never ever agree to that, even if I were the third to last person on earth, but it would be so, because the consensus says so.

PN: Chipping is not a good comparison because it infringes on what others can do, and prevents them climbing the rock in a natural way. I’m proposing an answer to decide where to start a boulder problem. Bulldozing Lincoln, also same difference. Plus we are talking about climbing ethics and climbers would obviously agree not to do that. But the larger point is that no one is forcing you to agree. It’s just about the “accepted” start of a boulder problem. I’m saying that the accepted start of a boulder problem should be determined by the community, rather than a rule that you believe everyone should follow. Neither of us are suggesting to make it impossible to start differently. Chipping by its very nature does.

B3: The consensus changes over time.
PN: Yes, and so should ethics be capable of change over time.

B3: How are we to define what it means to do something if the start keeps getting higher and higher (or changing all the time) and people keep climbing less and less (which is what they typically do) and claiming to have done the same?
PN: It is defined by the community as I said before. So consequently, people may not have done the same thing as others who climbed the same line. This actually happens all the time due to breakages. (almost every climb at Lincoln), or even different beta really. Not a big deal.

B3: Again, that is inaccurate.
PN: What is inaccurate? Do you mean you disagree?

B3: We don’t have an objective way to measure how hard it is to climb a rock, but I wish we did, and if we did I would be shocked if every climber didn’t use it.
PN: I agree if we had an objective way to measure difficulty we would likely all use it, because unlike your starting rule, there is probably no down side.

B3: Quality is pretty subjective and even more so is the experience of other people.
PN: Inter-subjective… and just because its not objective doesn’t make it unimportant. People clearly care about quality and fun, in fact they care about it more than almost anything else in climbing! Subjective isn’t a bad word. Other sports are more objective than climbing. So what? Climbing is not as good as other sports? I happen to think its the best sport, and fail to see how strict rules makes it better in this case.

B3: Objectivity in competition is always better.
PN: I agree, and if climbing a boulder problem was only a form of competition, you would have a point. But regardless of where you stand on the level of competitiveness in outdoor climbing, there is no doubt that you are not simply competing when you climb a boulder problem. Even for those who make money climbing outdoor boulder problems, climbing is not just a matter of competition. I would agree with you if we were talking about an actual climbing competition, where we do have judge, etc…

B3: Rocks are not awkward. People are weak. Climbers are awkward.
PN: Climbers are awkward, or specifically what they do on the rock can be awkward. That is why we should try to correct this awkwardness…

B3: Finally, why not just say, I did it from where the FAist did. End of story. End of debate. You have an answer every single time. And this debate is over.
PN: You have your answer every time either way. You either find out where the FAist started, or find out where the community agrees it should start (which most of the time you would know just by looking).
Cristian

28. Jun, 2012

B3, “I did it from where the FAist did”: which body part of the FAist? Hands or ass? (the sprinter’s hands or feet?) Both ways are equally arbitrary, objective and unambiguos, and none guarantees the same difficulty as the FAist experienced. It boils down to what we regard as most practical and aesthetic.

I think we should be pragmatic and accept the traditions of each area, e.g. start sitting on the ground in Font and start on specified holds in Bishop, and just complement with problem-specific rules when deemed appropriate by the FAist.
DanielG

28. Jun, 2012

As a former collegiate distance runner and coach now, I have to say I like the running analogy, but I think I will add another element to it…. Let’s get away from the track a bit, because that is very black and white (same start and finish for everyone, specific lanes, you get get your time, deal with it etc.) This is good, but let’s take it to cross country, where sometimes, the course can change just a little bit from year to year. Some instances the start and finish lines never change, and even the distance stays the same, but they will change the course, turns change or they don’t run up X or Y hill or whatever. This is kind of like starting holds being the same and finishing the problem the same way, but in the middle the didn’t use the same holds (obviously on a pure uncontrived line this wouldn’t matter most of the time) and therefore aren’t climbing the same line, but still calling it the same line.

So in that race when they change the course a little bit, it really bugs me that they still announce that somebody just broke the course record because it isn’t the same course. And on the rock if it isn’t clear which holds are on/off, then they may not deserve full credit.

But really in both cases we are only talking about the best climbers and the fastest runners, so for most of us it doesn’t matter as much because whether I start one hold higher, I still can’t climb the dang v14. So, basically, until it people bust out their colored tape or paint (which not even with John Gill’s permission would I be okay with) outside and mark every hold that is on route and it becomes more like track: I would just have to say climb the lines that call to you and challenge you and try to do so as close to the FA method as possible if you’re going to tick it down.
Winston

28. Jun, 2012

@P: The idea that a climb should start at something which is inter-subjectively obvious is imprecise, but consensus seems to trend a climb in that direction, i.e. an FAist will start on two crimps, and go to a jug and everyone else will ignore this part of the problem, and only do the more aesthetic part. In the end this is a very personal sport about challenging yourself. The only real challenge between climbers comes from competitions. Whether people get money from it or not doesn’t seem to matter too too much on ultimate ability or accomplishment, but seems mostly attached to media presence. Some good examples would be something like Paul Robinson not remotely hitting any speed bump in his sponsorship even after downgrading most of his problems (which was pretty cool), and a number of sponsored climbers which don’t climb problems at the forefront (look at some of the company team websites), and even more evidenced by the anecdotal evidence that everyone has about non-sponsored 5.14a R trad ascents, or V14 sends, etc.

@B3: Requiring starting holds begins to start brushing the line of required moves on a problem, a method some people have used previously to define problems.

Does your definition require that the climber’s hands have to start in the same order/position as the FAist? What about feet? Should it be similar to WC comps? Just asking.

Also, going back to the definition a problem, challenging yourself, and how hard you climb, if Daniel Woods climbs “The Game” and thinks its V16, and Dai Koyamada climbs both “Wheel of Life” and subsequently Carlo Traversi and Ethan Pringle both find better beta for those two problems, respectively, can we say that the FAists climbed V16? They did pull V16 moves, or got V16 pump. Not that their problems are defined as such, or that anyone who does them has climbed V16, or that they put up a V16, but that they did boulder V16? If we come up with Jessery to pull past a crux, did we climb the grade of an established problem? Would Funky Beta negate an ascent?

Also, how does this post relate to Dai Koyamada’s recent ascent of “Story of Two Worlds”?
Todd

28. Jun, 2012

B3: How do you know if you’ve repeated a boulder problem?
Todd: I see a guidebook definition of where to start and try to start as described and end as depicted in the guidebook and following the same general path. If that starting holds are described, then generally I’ll start there. The biggest keys are to start in the same general place, finish in the same general place, and follow the same general path. Certain boulder problems are acknowledged as being “contrived” and have certain holds as “off route”. If so, then I wouldn’t say I did that problem if I used those holds. Most guidebooks tend to indicate two different grades based on a “variation”.

B3: How do you define a boulder problem?
Todd: To me the name of the problem, the essence of the problem is related to the rock that you move over, not the starting holds, or even which specific holds you use.

B3: If the start isn’t defined clearly am I allowed to start anywhere I deem obvious?
Todd: The start is a sit start. Start sitting. Is that not clear?

B3: How do you define obvious?
Todd: Sitting and standing are pretty well defined concepts.

B3: Is your definition the same for everyone? If not, why not?
Todd: Yes.

B3: If the FAist doesn’t define where the problem starts, why can’t everyone just start anywhere they want?
Todd: They can. We are all free to climb whatever we want and call it whatever we want. If you want the community to be aware of what you’ve done, then you have to accept reasonable standards for communication and standards for behavior that allow for transference of information. Hence naming problems. The climbing community has developed a community norm for the concept of names. There is no law stating that by climbing something first you get to name it. Same thing with grades.

B3: Imagine a problem (there are hundreds) that you can reach the lip (where the problem is easy) standing on the ground, but the starting holds are too high off the ground to reach them sitting, how do you define the start of this problem? If it’s a stand start why can’t I just walk to the lip and top out?
Todd: What problem? There are no starting holds that are too high off the ground to reach, because then they are no longer starting holds. Walk on by and do a different problem. As seen by the continual development of bouldering, there are endless problems to go do. Climb whatever you like.

Jamie: My problem with the rule is that you’re trying to set a standard for the sport that shouldn’t apply to EVERYONE. I agree that PRO climbers should take pains to be open and transparent. I disagree that everyone else needs some rule forced on them that takes away from the freedom enjoyed by our chosen activity.
Winston

28. Jun, 2012

Additional competition comes from the statistical comparisons of 8a.nu, if a person chooses to participate. But all of this gets muddled by grading in different areas being “soft,” or being in a persons style, so they downgrade, or they have just gotten stronger wihtout knowing it, and without having a metric for it, so they can downgrade. Or, if they are at their ultimate level of climbing, and work a V15 while they have mono, without knowing it, then call it V16, etc.
Todd

28. Jun, 2012

@Paul N – Thank you for a well articulated view.

P “I am an advocate of starting where it is obvious to do so. You claim that obviousness is subjective to the individual, and therefore it’s better to make a rule so that everyone starts in the same place. Obviousness however, is not subjective, it is inter-subjective, an agreement among individuals, or a consensus. If 7 of 10 people agree on where the most obvious place to start a boulder problem is, then there is a consensus on where to start.”

B3: This doesn’t make sense. So if 7 out of 10 people decide chipping is ok, then it is because the consensus rules? Based on your argument it would be. Or if 7 out of 10 people decide that Lincoln Lake should be bulldozed to make a golf course it, it should be? I would never ever agree to that, even if I were the third to last person on earth, but it would be so, because the consensus says so. Also, the consensus can change over time. How are we to define what it means to do something if the start keeps getting higher and higher (or changing all the time) and people keep climbing less and less (which is what they typically do) and claiming to have done the same? Again, that is inaccurate.

@B3 – You’re confusing obviousness and morality. If 7 out of 10 people think chipping is OK, then it would be obvious that most people think chipping is OK. If 7 out of 10 people think a problem starts a certain way, then that start is the most obvious, not necessarily the original start.

The stance I (and it sounds like Paul) take is that if the FAist started in a blatently inobvious way, and without seeing it firsthand 7 out of 10 people would naturally start in a different way, then that should really be the start of the problem. I have put up problems where the next person comes along and starts it differently and it becomes much easier. Do I say “You didn’t do it right”? No, I say “Wow, I should’ve started that way” and problem xyz goes from v6 to v4. It’s still problem xyz, but just not the same grade. To me, it’s no different to finding better beta during a climb.
B3

28. Jun, 2012

I only have time for a short response, but I really appreciate everyones comments. They are thoughtful and they have stayed focused on the argument and not delved into personal attacks. I really appreciate all of the comments, they are awesome! Thanks for participating in the discussion everyone!

Based on the arguments of the subjectivists, If 7 out of 10 people decide that Snakes on a Plane is the greatest movie ever, then it is. I again argue that there are objective reasons why it’s not. It doesn’t have to infringe upon someone, although those were the examples I used. Again, using a subjective system you cannot determine whether or not you have repeated a problem. You can’t, because someone can always change the rules, because your system is set up for them to change. That will leave things perpetually muddled in ambiguity. I am not taking away anyones freedom. Do whatever you want, unless you want to make a claim about climbing a specific problem. To earn the right to make that claim it is imperative to define what the claim means as specifically as possible. It is inaccurate to say you have climbed something different from the FAist and claim you have done the same.

One of the reasons the subjective system falls apart is that, in fact, I could get together a bunch of people together simply to gain a majority (I could pay them off for example), and we could decide, for the sake of the argument, to literally do anything (whether or not it infringes upon others) even if it was based in madness. both Paul and Todd are reasonable, but many are not. I think this point is illustrated very well in the novel 1984. The system I suggest doesn’t allow that to ever happen.

Again, why is it that every sport in the world strives for objectivity? Is it ironic that while the consensus of major sports advocates for as much objectivity as possible, you guys still oppose it? I would argue they use objective measures because they are better (not because other people use it), and we should do the same, because it is better, but according to your argument we should follow the suit of the majority, yet you argue against that too? That doesn’t make sense, no matter whose side you’re on.

Finally, here is one very famous example of a problem http://vimeo.com/6463092 Slashface that perfectly exemplifies why my argument works. If Slashface is a standstart (how Todd would define it) then I should have the right to walk to the end and climb the last bit of Fat Apache Jogger (the V8 the makes up the end of Slashface) and climb it and call it good. I grabbed whatever holds I could reach off the ground. And if the majority decided that the crack was too painful and awkward and hard, then starting on Fat Apache Jogger would be ok? Right? I disagree. Slashface (thankfully) has specific starting holds to start on. So while you happen to stand start it, that doesn’t define the problem. What defines the problem is the specific starting holds on the far left side of the wall. Want another example? Fat Apache Jogger. Not a sit start, but the crux is low and standing you can reach past it. Again, the problem is defined by the starting holds (as it should be) Want another? The Evangalion, just to the left. That’s three problems on one wall in one of the most concentrated bouldering areas in the world.

that’s all I have time for right now.
Me

28. Jun, 2012

For those arguing that the line matters, not the start holds . . . it seems like you are of the opinion that it DOES NOT MATTER if we can ever compare ascents and be sure that people have done the same thing, difficulty wise. Otherwise, I see no way that you can possibly argue against using start holds to define boulder problems.

Keep in mind that no one is saying you are obligated to start where the FA started, if you find it inobvious. Only if you want to claim to have accomplished the same feat. If all you care about is getting to the top of a feature, fine. Do what you want. But for the purposes of accurately comparing climbing ability, to the extent that is possible, there is no other way.
Todd

28. Jun, 2012

“Again, why is it that every sport in the world strives for objectivity?”

The most popular sport in the world doesn’t seem to
.
Bart

29. Jun, 2012

Great discussion! It started with the video Mirthe made about ethics. This video contains some thoughts about The Island and what start is ‘right’ or ‘obvious’ and which start(s) should be mentioned in the guidebooks. This problem was chosen just as an example. Mirthe tried to get in contact with Dave because she wanted him and his opinion in the video too.
Not mentioned in the video and above, but maybe nice to know is that Sebastien Frigault tried this project with a sit start long before it was climbed with a higher start. He could do all the moves and he could do this full line in two overlapping parts. It might even be the case that he did the part now named The Island long before Dave did. But Sebastien didn’t claim the part he climbed as a boulder problem. His goal was to open it from a sit start on the ground. Again, I don’t know which parts from where he climbed, just that he could do it in two sections.
This perfectly illustrates different views of ethics, nothing more. Everybody can choose who he or she agrees with.

The first problems in Font where all standing starts, no jump starts. Jumping was considered cheating. These standing starts were all opened before crash pads were invented. Problems with high starting holds started with a stepping stone. This is why local climbers say you should start all problems without crash pad(s). But, you can start with every hold you like.
Jump starts where added in the eighties. This started a discussion: should all older problems be downgraded which are easier with a jump start? Later, sit starts came in vogue. Locals started sitting on the ground with all holds they could use. In Font a low start is indicated with a small dot on a foot hold you must start with. The hands are free.

In my guidebook, I use the system of the Font-locals. Standing start (without crash pad) with every hold you can reach. Tall people will know when they will have advantage. Small people will know if they can use a crash pad to reach starting holds. If starting holds are very high, you can start on more crash pads or a stone and the guidebook mentions this. A problem is only a jump start if the guidebook mentions this. Sit starts are with the butt on the ground.
But, this system does not work for every problem. Some problems have obvious, lower starting holds. Especially in roofs where it is often the question how deep to start. And, there are some crouching and very low sit starts too.

I think this system works. To me it is part of the game to find out where or how to start a boulder problem. If there are three holds, I don’t want the guidebook to tell me on which two I should start. Climbing is about freedom. And different climbers prefer different starting positions, just as they will climb the rest of the problem different. But, because there are so much problems on one boulder nowadays, even a Font guide book has to help with information like ‘start with side pull’ just to indicate where a problem is. Or, in a roof, how deep a problem starts.

Other countries may have other ethics. I agree with Jamie that his FA starting hold theory is very clear. Clearer than mine. But I like the freedom aspect in climbing. I like it that I can climb a problem this way and another can climb it his or her way. I know there must be some rules. But I like it when these rules are simple and allow some freedom. And simple is subjective too, it’s also about what you are used to. The way Dave started The Island does not combine very well with Font ethics. And thats what the video is about. It’s about ethics, not about Dave. And ethics will change. Thats freedom. And every country has it’s own ethics. Thats freedom too!
sidepull

29. Jun, 2012

I’m actually surprised at how heated this debate is. I think Jamie’s suggestion that starting on the same holds as the FAist is pretty intuitive. If you do something else, you are, by definition doing something else. What I find a bit odd is the notion that you need to start the same and end the same but you can do whatever you want in the middle. There’s a really cool video of Steven Jeffrey from, I think, one of the Triple Crown comps in the south. He’s on some esoteric V9ish thing and can’t figure out the moves so he just dynos. Same start holds, same finishing holds. The camera guy asks him immediately after if he is going to include it on his score card and his response was something like, “No, it’s not the same problem.” The camera guy responds, “but you used the holds, climbed the line.” Steven replies, “Bouldering is really contrived anyway, if I’m not using the holds in the middle it’s not the same problem.” Just last week I was bouldering in Central Park (talk about sandbags, especially on a humid day) and I can promise you that problems are defined hold by hold. Every single possible variation is named and rated. In general, I think we all strive for something like that. I realize that morphology allows everyone to climb in slightly different body positions and that smaller climbers might use intermediate holds that larger climbers don’t, but, in general, IF WE WANT TO COMPARE SENDS, then climbers need to be climbing, in good faith, the line climbed by the FAist.

I find Todd’s notion that “I cannot recall anyone saying a problem started from two specific holds” is preposterous. I’ve climbed all over the world and almost anyone when they show up to an area and spies a local that knows the beta almost immediately asks, “so where does this start?” That question gets asked all the time. All the time. I think the point of climbing, in some ways, is to try to test ourselves against each other’s experiences and that only happens when we try to do what others have done.

I’d like to return to the phrase I capitalized above – IF WE WANT TO COMPARE SEND – to make a final point. If you have no desire for comparison, either for historical, personal, or professional reasons, then do whatever you like. Climb from the “obvious” start, use the cheater jug, stack pads, whatever. But don’t pretend you climbed the “line.” As Steven said, “climbing is contrived.” If you’re above the contrivance, that’s fine, but then you are also above having to claim you did something. So if you are a subjectivist, if you truly believe you just need to start in the obvious place, use whatever beta, padding, etc., then you shouldn’t be responding here because, at the end of the day, you don’t care about the name, grade, or sharing your accomplishments, you just care about the experience. That’s fine, it’s totally acceptable, but that doesn’t make Jamie’s opinion wrong, it just means you shouldn’t care.
Mark E

29. Jun, 2012

Unarguably, if you are looking for a precise assessment of the difficulty of a boulder problem, and an accurate comparison between the people who attempt it, you must require all the competitors to start from the same holds and finish at the same holds.

Note that I’m calling them competitors, not climbers. This is the crucial point I want to make: not all climbers see themselves as competitors.

How do I know this is true? Because competition climbing exists and has a set of rules that has been vetted by the world’s best climbers. Years of experimentation has produced a fairly standardized approach. No competition formats allow starts from variable holds.

The problem is that not everyone who boulders, even at a high level, is comfortable with defining climbing as a competitive activity. If a climber (or a community of climbers) wants to blend the competitive side with concerns like aesthetics (“it’s a proud line’) or historic value (“it’s a Gill problem”) then the pure side-by-side comparison of difficulty is no longer given primacy. There are other concerns that may trump the competitive side.

Personally, I have no problem with taking a competitive approach to climbing. It doesn’t mean that you have to be petty or a jerk — you can simply embrace that you want to find out where you stack up relative to other’s abilities.

But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want to emphasize the competitive side you don’t get to also claim that aesthetics, historic value and other factors are all equally represented in your evaluation system. If a climber wins a bouldering competition it’s because he started on the same holds as the other competitors and climbed higher than they did. No one can take away the result by claiming that the problems were not aesthetic or the way the winner climbed them was not the way the setters intended the problems to be climbed. You agree to play by a set of rules and this rules determine who wins.

Not everyone who climbs outdoors, and outside of a precise set of rules, wants to make climbing into a precisely define competitive endeavor. Some climbers argue that there all no rules, or that the rules are highly subjective. Fine for them — they have opted out of the competitive side of climbing. I think that’s totally fine — it’s how I climb myself. If I were ever to get interested in climbing in a competitive mode again I would want to do it in the setting that allows the most precise assessment of who is the strongest — a climbing comp.
Matt

29. Jun, 2012

“‘Again, why is it that every sport in the world strives for objectivity?’

The most popular sport in the world doesn’t seem to ”

Are you referring to football/soccer? If so, referees are subjective and everyone thinks every call is bad. That’s how most team sports are realistically. Striving for objectivity is why instant replay is being added to more and more sports. With videos of ascents, we basically have that in climbing. However, videos and climbing can be a different topic of debate.

Personal experience regarding the ethical debate (might take a minute to read): A few weeks ago, I was working on this V6 roof at an area I had never been to (Johnstown, PA). It was a roof over two large boulders, one slanted down to the start and another was flat towards the lip. I could literally sit anywhere and start anywhere on the problem from maybe a foot before the lip. There were 3 holds before the lip encounter that I would designate as “roof” climbing that led to the “start”.

Now, I had not seen beta for this climb even though I knew the name and grade for it. I started at the obvious holds at the base of the roof. It was a right hand side pull and good left hand crimp which were low and right next to each other. From there I made a big move up to an edge, then undercling, then lip encounter.

When I got home, I watched a video of the route to clarify. The person in the video started 1 move in. Left hand on the edge which is probably about 3 feet higher than the left hand crimp I started on and same right hand. Did I climb a new problem?

My friend that I was with started with his left hand even lower than I did but same right hand after I was working on the problem. Did he get a new ascent?

Now, whereever we started, there is room for a much harder lower start (I think, I’ll have to go back and check how low) where one could have their right hand where my friends left was and left hand further over adding 2 moves to where my friend started, 3 to where I was, and 4 to what I saw in the video.

So where do we draw the line? In my opinion, my start was super obvious because they were low, distinct holds about a foot apart horizontally on the same height. However, it appears to be incorrect and I started lower (and honestly made the problem a grade harder than starting where the person in the video did but I felt my start was a truer V6. My friends start didn’t make it harder than where I started.)

I feel like I started correctly and my friend and I climbed the same problem despite his hand being slightly lower as it didn’t change the problem in terms of flow or difficulty and the person in the video started one move in and possibly overgraded the problem from that point.
Todd

29. Jun, 2012

Nietzsche – Thank you for articulating(and very well) my feelings on this.

I’m not so sure we don’t need a Sheriff, but a Sheriff does not create rules. He/She just enforces the rules of the community.
B3

29. Jun, 2012

@Bart You’re guidebook is incredible. Really added to my enjoyment of Font. I appreciate all of the hard work you did to make it as great as it is. We visited 34 different areas while we were there and got to each and everyone easily, even the area (I forget the name) of where Welcome to Jamrock is. Thanks so much for assembling all of that info and caring!