2nd Ascent Of Monkey Wedding (V15) By Paul Robinson

Sorry, let me clarify. I did give an opinion “I was not impressed”, because someone asked for it and I have actually tried the problem. The rest I think would qualify as objective statements, for the most part.

I am not going to delve into this any more than one final comment, but please remember that this is what I did write, verbatim, about Lucid Dreaming.

“This is a classic and difficult problem and it’s great to see it finally get climbed. I want to emphasize that much more than the grade of the problem, the classic and difficult nature of the boulder, and it’s central location in one of the best bouldering areas in the country make this a significant contribution.”

The grade of the problem was clearly in question in my opinion (which I do have the right to express), as both Paul and Daniel, and Tim Clifford and Matt Birch, had all tried it and all suggested previously that is was V15, from what I had heard and read. If I recall correctly, Birch suggested it was V14. I think that all of the climbers listed had done all the moves on Lucid Dreaming, but I may be wrong about that.

In comparison, I watched many of the best climbers go try The Game and get totally shut down. I don’t think a few of the moves on The Game had been done until this spring. It seemed that when this was climbed it could possibly be a new level. Having seen Daniel and Paul climb together on numerous occasions, in the gym, in the weeks prior to Daniel climbing the FA, DW seemed to be on another level.
Additionally, Paul has only climbed one problem graded V15, Terremer, and Daniel has climbed several, so his understanding and experience at the grade is better.
All of this information added up in my mind that the grade of LD was something that could be questioned.

I don’t know that I have ever personally attacked Paul, although I have often been accused of such. If there is evidence for this, I would like to see it.

I will reiterate. Being objectively critical will help our sport, as soon as climbers stop being so concerned about their fragile egos and start examining the unquestionable information surrounding their ascents.
What will push them more, questioning them and demonstrating how they can do something better, or patting them on the back every time they climb a V10?
I was “critical” of Angie Payne here in regards to her failure to find new problems and do FAs:

“The men sharing? Wolverineland is survival of the fittest. How about Angie goes and finds her own new boulders to climb on and truly lead the way? There are plenty of unclimbed boulders there.”

and here is her response

“jamie is 100% correct here– no one should “share” a new line with me, i should go find one myself.
@timpson– i am interested, i guess i just haven’t been motivated enough. i have seen the hard work that goes into an FA, and i have a great deal of respect for it. my motivation to do an FA is definitely growing, and as jamie said, that would be leading the way.”

Angie is one of the most driven climbers I know, and I also know she appreciates that kind of constructive criticism, as it makes her better.

I have thought long and hard about the perception of bias, and I am generally very careful about the words I choose. I think living in Boulder gives me a unique perspective on things and there are many details that are lost to the greater audience.

Having climbed on both problems, I think The Game is a much better line and I’m not sure why being critical of the quality of Monkey Wedding is a slight on Paul. It seems that if someone has a different opinion, you’d rather not hear it? Again, let’s not forget that Fred did the FA 8 years ago and graded it V14.

And finally, Livin’ Large, which is far more impressive than both problems, remains unrepeated.

B3 – I find a similiarity between your comments and those by Jens at 8a. Almost like you would say anything to get more traffic to your website. Whether or not a problem is “impressive” or “proud” is a completely subjective thought, so I’m not sure why the critique is necessary. Paul was psyched to get on this problem before his trip, so kudos to him for realizing his goal.

In regards to grades, it’s bouldering. One persons v10 is anothers v12.

I also find it inappropriate to call a problem soft or over-graded, if the person making the critical comments has not sent the line. Any argument or opinion seems empty and inane at best.

And since when does Fred Nicole assign grades to his FA’s? Granted this was done almost a decade ago, but I don’t ever recall Fred grading this problem.

It saddens me that you don’t think I am simply that interested in climbing. I blogged when no one went to my site, and I will continue to do so if no one does. I don’t blog for everyone else. I do it for my own selfish reasons.

Correct me if I’m wrong. You’re argument is that if there is a subjective thought about something, no one should give their opinion? Critique is unnecessary, especially when backed by information, for subjective things, like art, literature, etc?
Is it unnecessary because we don’t understand it as well as Paul? Wouldn’t we understand it better if we asked questions?

You’re next argument is that if I haven’t climbed the problem I haven’t earned the right to comment on the grade. I didn’t climb the problems I set for ABS Nationals, but I did climb on them, and the result of the comp depended upon my opinion of the difficulty. I disagree that I can’t give an opinion. I also think everyone has the right to give an opinion. Do you think they don’t?

And finally, I was pointing out that Fred did the FA 8 years ago and found it to be easier than Paul, which begs the question, why did Paul uprate it, among other things?

Although I encourage the criticism of myself, I don’t understand it. I have given countless reasons how being critical of top climbers ascents helps the progression of climbing, but I would like to know what evidence there is that not being critical helps, which seems to be your argument?

Thinking about things and constructing arguments is more fun than climbing, for me, especially when I have a rest day.

I’m with SP. The critique in this instance just seems to be in poor taste.

Now, to avoid seeming biased myself, I also thought it was also in terribly poor taste for Paul Robinson to say on his blog that he was “unimpressed” with Nalle’s “Livin Large”. I completely agree with Jamie that “Livin Large” looks “more impressive” (certainly the hardest-looking problem I’ve seen), and for another top climber to so casually dismiss this amazing boulder was, simply, in very poor taste.

Hey B3, it is VERYYYYYYYY interesting for your quote “Fred Nicole has left his mark here, with such classics as Nutsa V12, Madiba V14 and the unrepeated Monkey Wedding V15.” from your last trip to Rocklands. I think EVRYONE should take a look at your insane hypocrisy…

http://www.b3bouldering.com/2009/07/29/day-4/

the post for anyone that wants to see!

and more lower in the post “Monkey Wedding V15 climbs behind the tree on the left side of the boulder, Nutsa V12 climbs the right arete.”

“It saddens me that you don’t think I am simply that interested in climbing”

“Thinking about things and constructing arguments is more fun than climbing, for me,”

lolz, teh internetz.

ok buddy dont get all butt hurt. you wrote it as 8c so why does it change all of a sudden. were you reporting untrue news!?

this cracks me up. Its a blog, if you don’t agree with what it says don’t read it. unless you have nothing better to do than talk shit on other people. i think there is nothing wrong with commenting on a problem. I am willing to bet every one at some point has come along a boulder they thought just wasn’t that cool when every one else thought it was the bees knees. just cause its hard doesn’t make it awesome. Let the man(jamie) have a voice, let every one have a voice, until some one is called out by name and then bashed, its all just nonsense. oh and isn’t Jade V14, hence the only one V15.