Getting a jump on the winter bouldering season in Bishop, CA, Dan Beall has done the 3rd ascent, and perhaps more notably the first ground up ascent, of the highball Luminance (V11ish) at the Secrets of the Beehive Area.
First climbed late last year by Shawn Diamond after toprope inspection, Luminance climbs “an exceptionally beautiful wall above a heinous landing”. You may remember seeing this problem in the Reel Rock Tour’s presentation of Progression where Kevin Jorgeson does the 2nd ascent with spotter Tim Kemple anchored to the rock in order to aid him in spotting Jorgeson safely.
Intrigued after watching a friend feel out the opening moves on the line, Beall stepped up and gave the problem a shot:
After several forays across the scary lower moves, he soon found himself looking at the meat of the climb–a huge pull from one good edge to another with the terrifying drop zone into a ravine enough to make him second guess the outcome. However, after sitting down for a while, “until I stopped shaking,” he says, Dan pulled on once more and this time committed to the throw.
“Even though you feel like you’re going to die, I think that the climb is actually fairly safe with just a few pads because of how positive the holds are and how relatively controlled the falls should be. The only place where you could get really hurt I think is the move to the lip, but if you can get there, you really shouldn’t fall, it’s probably the easiest move on the climb.”
Read the rest of the story at the Bishop Bouldering Blog and then check out the video of the send:
right on!!!!!
loading...
San Diego Represent!
loading...
I like how people apparently have a problem with San Diego. Jealous??
loading...
Just when I was thinking how great it was to see footage without cheesy music…
Don’t mean to sound negative, because it’s a great send and I do appreciate the effort folks put into making videos, but am I the only one who thinks music takes away from the send/experience?
loading...
As a fledgling producer of low quality online climbing videos I will say that I don’t put a whole lot of thought into the music I put in my videos. It’s mostly just filler. As a viewer of online videos I almost always have the sound turned off unless its obvious something interesting is being said.
loading...
I liked the music… Really brought the excitement home. Kinda like the video of K-Jorg on the Fly. Music adds to the apprehension and the execution of the moves.
loading...
While music CAN add to a video, I still like to hear the live sound of the send- the breathing, yells, and background sounds paint a better picture of the actual experience. Without it, sometimes its hard to tell whether or not the climber’s even trying.
I’d rather hear music during the collage footage of the attempts, and then no music during the send.
Again, I’m not trying to be negative- I’ve just been noticing that, as the production quality keeps increasing (soundtracks, multiple cameras/angles, etc.), the less I get that vicarious buzz of being there watching the send go down. Some of the tension is lost.
loading...
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.
loading...
what is a ground up ascent?
loading...
Ground up in this case refers to the fact that he worked all the moves from the ground. When he fell, he started right back from the beginning of the problem on the ground. Previous ascents were done with a top rope inspection/moves worked on a top rope prior to the actual ascent.
loading...
Its important to note, that a lot of highball boulders are worked on TR inspection because of the inherent danger, from Jason Kehl to Kevin Jorgeson. Personally (and we all know how much my opinion matters) ground up represents a more… adventuristic and pure style.
loading...
My feeling, not that it matters at all, is that as soon as something is dangerous enough to need top rope rehearsal it is no longer a boulder problem.
Making the analogy sort of that R/X = Highball/Solo
loading...
It’s also important to note that a lot of these highball problems are preinspected on toprope to make sure there aren’t any loose holds that would make for nasty surprises trying from the ground up.
loading...
Yea, ala Kevin Jorgeson breaking a foothold 25 feet up on a Bishop highball, always a very real possibility. It is very impressive to see these lines done ground up, but I certainly don’t look down on those who choose to clean/inspect first.
loading...
So – basically, a very fine line defines ground-up vs. efing balzy on a high ball. But it’s not like he didn’t know the risks of his attempts and ascent. I’m glad we got to see the apprehensive move in the vid – I thought that was a nice touch. But, I think the question could be; would a ground up ascent have been possible without previous top rope inspections and ascents? I mean, the element of danger in his mind would have been greater had he not known someone did it before. Thats all… Not that this discredits anything done, efing major props, this was bad azz. But he knew in his mind that others had inspected it before so that must have comforted some fears. Sorry, I just like starting conversation when it seems like everyone is agreeing.
loading...
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.
loading...
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.
loading...
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.
loading...
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.
loading...
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.
loading...
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.
loading...
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”?
loading...
I can probably count on one hand the number of routes/problems I’ve onsighted at my home crag…
loading...