Does this ruin the Alpine Club boulder? '
As you can see above I have lined out a photo of the current problems on the Alpine Club boulder. I now would like to ask you a few questions, please feel free to comment.
1) Would you classify all of these as new boulder problems? (*Alpine club in Yellow)
2) Should problems like this have names and grades?
3) Would you climb these problems?
4) Do a significant number of problems like this in a area make the area worse?
5) Should these problems be put into a guide or added onto Mountain Project?
I have no problem with adding crazy contrived problems onto 8a.nu but adding them to a platform such as MP allows people to search for hard things and find this...
Ready, set, GO.
4 comments:
I think posting and talking about this stuff is fine, as long as you are clear about what you've done (an eliminate/variation).
Don't expect me, however, to walk up to this boulder and give half a shit how some other guy used the distinctive crimp, or skipped the clam jug or whatever. If there's a clear line, and it's fun, I'll do it. But eliminates be damned: I'm using every reasonable hold to do an obvious line, and if that makes it a shitty v3, then the boulder is a shitty v3.
I agree with Sean except that I do not think "new routes" should be posted on MP. For instance at Willow River the potential for links and variations is very very high, for example the recent additions of "cabel" and "play time is over" if we keep going down that road we will have a crag that is just muddled in link ups that add no new moves. In the end I say climb whatever you want but there is no need to pad the ego with posting a "new line"
1) They are new boulder problems, just not very good ones. They have a different path and are by definition different. But a few of the newer ones are terrible eliminates which barely qualify as new.
2) They should have names and grades because they're different.
3) However, since I wouldn't begin to touch these problems, I don't care about their names or grades.
4) Simply put, yes. Nobody wants to be Lincoln Woods. The Lake is already known, at least somewhat, for having tons of eliminates so it's slightly different there. However, nobody likes eliminates and regardless of where they are, the area is worse off because of them (save famous ones like the mono problem in LCC).
5) No. Mountain Project is a resource for people NOT familiar with the area or for locals to see cool new problems. It's just embarrassing if you have a bunch of 2 star eliminates. As mean as it may be to say this, nobody
comes from out of town to do Velvet Hammer Sit.
Paul
As I understand it this conversation pertains to contrived lines revolving around eliminates more-so than questioning the legitimacy of link-ups..
Granted I am terribly biased, but I think Play Time is Over and Cabel are perfectly legit routes. I see no reason why they should be excluded from MP, and not because my frail ego couldnt stand having it otherwise.
If Jeff, while bolting Willow, had decided that the most obvious line on the wall was Business Time for instance, then that would have been the original line and all others coming off it, such as Natural would be the link-up.
Or if we want to keep it on bouldering, so Nic's head wont explode :), lets take the Cave Traverse as an example. If the first ascentionist had decided to start at the Midget Sit Start and traverse left to the jugs, then starting at the beginning of the Cave Traverse on the far left would have become a link-up. Who knows, perhaps this is the way the line came about? Nic?
I think saying that the only reason someone would add these lines to MP is out of a need to pad the ego is bitter and misguided.
The value of MP is so that both local and out-of-towners can have access to all the lines on the wall. That person can then use that information to make an informed decision and climb what has them most psyched, not just what was bolted first.
Post a Comment