Comments on: Climbing Video: Dan Beall Ground Up On Bishop Highball Luminance

By: Jonathan Deguzman

Jonathan Deguzman — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:46:06 +0000

Very valid points towards both having music diminish or enhance climbing videos. My only quarrel is, what is meant by “cheesy music”? Would have the video been better if the music was of your taste? The argument would have been valid had the word “cheesy” been removed.

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:42:57 +0000

I can probably count on one hand the number of routes/problems I’ve onsighted at my home crag…

By: Nietzsche

Nietzsche — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:17:17 +0000

I’ll make two more points on this.

Point One:
Not to detract from the accomplishments of Bachar and others, but the nature of climbing a specific areas tends to suggest the type of holds that one is looking for as well as expected rock quality and number of feasible holds. I’m not saying that there is any guarantee that but a tentative certainty in knowing an area well. Most of the late greats did not travel as extensively as the weekend warrior does today. Think about your own local “home” area. You probably climb much harder there than elsewhere (and hence are usually prone to sandbagging). Areas tend to have styles and when you learn the style your climb better (even onsighting) because you know what you’re looking for.

Point Two:
In regards to “pushing the limits of climbing”: I think this is a relatively subjective term. We use the term limits in such a wide array I don’t think it is limited to difficulty a la the V-Scale. Limit(s) include (as Jorgeson has showed us) highball boulder problems. But doesn’t limit also include being on the edge of something, something that is unknown? And doesn’t prerehearsal on toprope attempt to eliminate this unknown (ahem) X-factor?

I think that those problems that retain a sense of uncertainty are those, when climbed, are the most satisfying (why Echele is a zero-star boulder problem). When moves are not on lock-down or the experience of irreducible is risk is what separates outdoor climbing from gym climbing.

So I’ll reinstate my position that while Bachar is insane, he might not be that insane and while Jorgeson is pushing the limits does this mean he climbs at the limit? Or is it even a limit anymore when its been prehearsed and becomes “known” or “doable”?

By: Narc

Narc — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:48:30 +0000

If you think about it, old school climbers regularly climbed ground up not knowing whether or not something would go. People probably never thought someone like Bachar would be trying 5.11 moves way out from a bolt not knowing what was higher.

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:45:41 +0000

Interesting perspective that you’d prefer the moves not be done on top rope, just a general inspection. I think the pre-rehearsed moves make these new high-ballz possible for climbers. Take Kevin Jorgensen’s ascent of Ambrosia in Progression. He pre-rehearsed the moves and at the end of the FA he actually said for a while he forgot he was not on a rope and he got a tad freaked out near the top out when he realized. I see him climb at my local gym (north cali baby!!), and you think these guys never get scared with what they are capable of. Pretty crazy, but I don’t think that ascent would have been possible were it not for the pre-rehearsed moves. I think it’s important to keep pushing the bar, but who’s going to ever try a V9 crux move at +40 ft with no rope and not even knowing if it’s possible – only having to think it’s possible. I think it’s an entirely different climb. I agree with the ethic, but I think a lot of great climbs would be missed if it were not for the pre-rehearsal – dam this human nature and the flight or fight syndrome.

By: Nietzsche

Nietzsche — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:26:59 +0000

I think it is well worth to note that climbing a highball boulder problem ground up is almost always done by someone other than the first ascentionist and takes the FAer’s lead by a.) trusting that the moves are possible, b.) trusting that the grade of the problem is (roughly) accurate, c.) trusting that the FAer has adequately prepared the climb for others.

In my own opinion a high ball boulder problem should be inspected and cleaned on TR, but the moves should not be tried on TR. I’m not sure if this ethic could be considered “Ground Up” but I think it combines the best from both styles of climbing.

By: Narc

Narc — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:20:10 +0000

If you watch Progression or visit the link to the Shawn Diamond FA article you can see how slanted and rocky the landing is. Uneven landings certainly suck, but they suck harder when they slope downhill as you get higher up.

By: Narc

Narc — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:17:46 +0000

I like how people apparently have a problem with San Diego. Jealous??

By: Mic

Mic — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:17:34 +0000

If I understand it correctly a bad landing makes this boulder problem dangerous. It didn’t show in the movie though. It looks like just another bishop problem to me. A really nice one though.

By: Narc

Narc — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:54:14 +0000

I thought that was a nice touch too. I think we’ve all had a similar experience at some point on a boulder problem.

Obviously with a problem like this simply knowing that others had done it (and most likely seeing video of others doing it) goes a LONG way. It’s like any problem getting repeated after the FA, just a bit deeper in this instance because of the danger involved.