Just the other week Alex Johnson mentioned in the comments of the Bucket List post that the iconic boulder problem The Mandala (V12) was high on her list of problem she was looking to do. Coincidentally she has been in Bishop of late, and last week she realized her goal of sending The Mandala*, this according to the Bishop Bouldering Blog.
Johnson’s ascent was likely the 2nd by a female, the other being Lisa Rands back in 2008. DPM caught up with Johnson after the send for this interview.
*According to the Bishop Bouldering Blog entry Johnson did the problem from an increasingly common high start which, from what I can gather, begins 1 move into the original starting method.
buy zithromax online https://nouvita.co.uk/wp-content/themes/fing/inc/php/zithromax.html no prescription
In the comments of that blog entry Wills Young says that not many people want to do the original start since “it adds a bit of difficulty” which he thinks is a “shame” while admitting that “there are many gray areas when it comes to climbing” so…
buy symbicort online https://nouvita.co.uk/wp-content/themes/fing/inc/php/symbicort.html no prescription
I’m no boulderer so take this with a grain of salt. IT seems a bit weird that there are multiple starts all called the same problem.
Isn’t the whole point of saying “sit start” vs “normal problem” BECAUSE there’s a change in difficulty.
If the “high start” is easier than the Sharma Start (FAist) and starts differently, I call shenanigans. Not specifically at A.J. since it seems this is “normal” now but at all who claim “Mandala” without mentioning the high start.
loading...
We were there when the chip broke off the right handed crimp used for the DG method (most of the holds from the original Sharma method are gone)…Watching several people try and grab the new hold to test that method seemed to bump the grade up to V13.
Though I did not do it, I was trying to start left hand on the low foot hold crimp and right hand in the undercling, this seemed like a good compromise between not needing an extra pad to start with your left hand higher, but still having your right hand in the undercling for the new-school method….thoughts?
Seems like it would be illogical to persist in maintaining that the original method must be climbed when it is so much easier to go the other way (even from a lower start). Not to mention that when you are climbing the line from the sit, you end up in the new-school position.
My 2 cents.
-MZ-
loading...
Only if you do the new school method for the sit also…
loading...
Nice one, Alex!
loading...
I am confused. So the original holds are broken but there is still some expectation to start with your hands in the same general areas that Sharma started his hands? And it’s harder now to start that way than it was then?
If that’s true, then why would her ascent somehow be less valid? Seems to be the problem has evolved since he did it. I could be misinterpreting though. Narc care to clarify?
Nice send Alex. Most of us can only dream of such a send.
loading...
Hey Egghead, I might be able to shed a little light…or maybe not. But I don’t think the starting holds ever broke, however, the initial holds you move to from the starting holds have crumbled/broke over time (still usable, though, I guess) and there are two (?) normal ways of moving into these next holds depending on how one sets up off the starting holds. There are essentially 3 holds in a vertical 18″ area that people commonly start from – a low edge, a middle undercling, and a higher edge. It was originally started on the low edge and the high edge then moving into the undercling (with differing hands depending on the next sequence). So since one is already starting on a hold above the undercling, why not just use that hold and the undercling (is the reasoning I suppose – you are already stacking pads to get there)? Seems valid enough to me (though I see both sides – Sharma started there and worked his R hand into the undercling) – if you are going with right hand in the undercling, why have your first moves be down/spend your time futzing with holds that are right in your face to start? But like Wills said, there are gray areas.
As a side note, I think this an absolutely fantastic send by a great climber! But it does seem that often when a woman does a hard ascent something is always questioned – did she start on the right holds, did she top out, is it really that grade?
loading...
Thanks for the explanation.
With regards to these things being brought up only after a female ascents I generally agree with your sentiments. However, ascents of the Mandala are not regularly discussed otherwise so it’s hard to know when to bring something like this up.
loading...
Definitely not a dig at the Narc. Reporting and being honest is the most important thing and something this site seems to do better than all others. It merely struck me as odd, yet seemingly typical, that there are two posts involving women and their ascents on the front page and in both someone has called into question the validity of these sends.
loading...
Thanks for the explanation. I guess that’s a little clearer. I don’t know. IMO it all boils down to honesty about what you did. She was honest. Nowadays everyone has a video camera or a posse of photographers anyway. Props to her.
On that note, I’m off to change a poopy diaper.
loading...
Wills has actually made this point in the past about people starting on stacked pads to have a hand already in the undercling.
See for a good Mandala history lesson:
http://pebbleharvester.com/2010/12/30/the-breaking-of-the-mandala/
loading...
Seems to me to be quibbling to the point of making the problem an eliminate. If you do a stand start and you can reach the holds from the ground, you get to use them. Unless they have the yellow tape on them.
loading...
By its very nature bouldering is an activity built upon arbitrary guidelines. Are you saying that you think each climber should be able to reach as high as possible and pull on using whatever holds they can reach??
loading...
Sort of. Let me first say that I don’t boulder much so take my opinion with a grain of salt. It’s been my opinion, as well as general understanding that eliminates or rules problems are generally thought to be less quality than a pure, hard, natural line. That isn’t to say they aren’t fun. This bouldering ‘starting hold’ rule exists so far as I can tell, to make problems longer. The same is true of a sit start.
I’m not a fan on sit starts in generally because it’s arbitrary difficulty, not to mention that all sitstarts are basically the same move– pulling your fat ass out of the dirt. There’s nothing terribly aesthetic about that, but it is difficult.
If you want to add length or moves, just go climb a sport route. Fewer arbitrary guidelines too. Just clip the chains w/o weighting the rope. Unless you’re on Paradise Lost, in which case the giant camp out ledge is definitely off route.
loading...
Well said. I mean, you bring up a good point. The sit start only holds value in bouldering, it has nothing to do with climbing – and I’d agree some are quite awkward looking. Although it adds difficulty, does it really mean you get to go to someone else’s line and say if you sit on your ass and start the problem its now V-blah as opposed to V-bleh. I dunno. I suppose it all depends if the feature adds character and beauty to the existing problem – and I think thats a judgment call on the climbers part. I think PR’s Mandala Direct ASSis (V14) made a nice addition to the problem – and the best top out yet.
Awesome to see another female send ofTthe Mandala. Nice work to Alex. No matter what the beta was – it’s yet another milestone if female assents in my opinion. I’ve seen people leave The Mandala with only broken a ankle. Glad to see success.
loading...
All climbing difficulty is arbitrary difficulty (like any other sport). You could always just walk up the backside of the boulder or have a helicopter drop you off at the top of the cliff.
To say that all sit starts are the same (pulling your ass out of the dirt) makes about as much sense as saying that all dynos are the same or all lock-offs are the same. Sure, at some level they’re all the same. At another level they’re interestingly different.
loading...
Disagree. The best climbs have cruxes you can’t cheat. If an easier way to do the crux gets figured out, the route gets downgraded. Only in bouldering is it differentiated which way you did it.
And sit starts are the epitome of contrived difficulty. It’s always the first added on move of a problem. You’ll never encounter a sit start on route. If you like doing them that’s cool.
It was interesting to read Wills’s blog post about the Mandala… seemed like a strong dose of sharma worship and a weird desire to preserve an exact sequence of climbing.
loading...
…if you can sleep at night?
I mean, at a certain point it boils down to the fact that the only oversight for climbing ethics is the climber him/herself (see how progressive my ethics are!). There aren’t referees, ShotSpots, instant replays, or dab police to determine how you act. It’s your internal compass that guides your actions. And that’s cool so long as you’re honest.
I’ve always believed in a climb what you want, and—if you care to–grade what you want ethic. A repeat is only a repeat insofar as being on the same boulder…people find new holds/beta all the time. The pursuit of quanitifcation in our sport/culture has led to the adoption of these psuedo-objective rules which, in reality, have fairly little to do with the actual subjective experience. Frankly, we need to follow one standard to free ourselves from the shackles of the rest: honesty…just do what you enjoy and be truthful about it
would people be pissed if someone acknowledgingly skipped a v11 first move (or sit), to get to the v6 climbing above because they were inspired by the line and had the reach to do it? Just don’t call a club a spade.
I mean, its not as though lanky climbers aren’t going to have the ability to reach farther during the rest of the route…
so contrive away, but i think these arguments are getting trite when the subjective nature of the sport is obvious
sincerely,
a short guy who’s been slighted by so many lanky dudes that objectivity dissipated long ago
ps props to alex (sorry to take up ya comment space) and everyone else who climbs to enjoy it
loading...
+1 for this gem, “acknowledgingly.”
loading...
Sorry to post again – but Alex has said it best in the interview from DPM…
“DPM: How did it compare for you with other V12’s you’ve done, like last year’s quick ascent of Diaphanous Sea?
AJ: I have no idea how to compare the Mandala to other problems, or any of the boulders I’ve climbed to other problems for that matter. Honestly, grades don’t make any sense to me. All of the “hardest” problems I’ve ever done have suited me exactly, with longer moves on decent crimps. This style seems to be one of my strengths, where as compression, for example, isn’t something I excel at. I could try to compare all the hard problems with long crimpy moves to each other and they’d all feel the same. If all grades were completely wiped out and I could start over and compare Clear Blue Skies and A Maze of Death to a squeezy roof problem out in North Carolina called The Third Rail I would tell you that The Third Rail is harder. (It’s V8/9)[ed. CBS and Maze are given V12]. The bottom line is, when it comes to the grades of boulder problems I have no idea.”
loading...
@MZ
“Not to mention that when you are climbing the line from the sit, you end up in the new-school position.”
I’m not sure this is true based on footage of Tony Lamiche and Gabriel Moroni climbing from the sit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw9AfxC4ErQ
But good send none the less.
loading...
For what it’s worth, I always thought Paul Robinson’s Mandala Direct Sit was #1 in terms of aethetics, for beta and the line – http://vimeo.com/2617493.
The new sit start method of moving way out left, swinging back into the undercling, then again escaping out left for the topout is meh.
Whatever though. Nice send Alex.
loading...
From video that I’ve seen, no one moves “way out left” for the sit start. People are using a left hand hold that hasn’t generally been used before, but it is completely reachable from the standard sit start position. Seems legitimate to me. The Mandala sit down start is not a set of holds. It’s a line up a boulder.
As far as “escaping out left for the topout” . . . that’s what the first ascentionist did. It’s the line of least resistance. There’s a reason people distinguish between The Mandala and The Mandala direct finish.
loading...
Sure, the new method is legit. By all means, take the line of least resistance…the mandala isn’t an eliminate. I’m just commenting on the aesthetics of the line. I think the direct finish with the “old” sit start beta is the prettiest to look at. That’s all.
loading...
I would agree with that.
loading...
I think two similar things in bouldering are often confused.
The “Line” and the “Problem”
The Line is the feature, the section of rock, the whatever it is you’re climbing, and as such may be done in whatever fashion on whatever set of holds you please.
The Problem, and hence the difficulty depends not only on the holds, but even on the sequence.
If someone puts up a new problem at Vwhatever, and then someone else comes along and climbs the line with different beta or uses different holds, they have NOT climbed the same “Problem”.
loading...
Props to Alex for climbing a really, really hard problem. However, she did NOT climb The Mandala. Boulder problems have defined starting points and deviating from the start (or finish) is simple invalid. Very impressive ascent, but simply not the best style.
loading...
Come on man . . . it seems obvious from actually reading the other comments posted here that it’s not that simple. Holds have broken, beta has been refined. If starting from the same holds has become completely illogical because of the next holds no longer existing, you can’t just make a statement like that.
loading...
Just to add my personal opinion . . . I think people should be able to start off of any holds they can reach from standing on ONE pad. The FA was done in classic stand-start style . . . Chris seemed to be starting as high as he could reach.
The thing that’s really lame is when you see people standing on 4 pads to reach all the way up into the undercling, skipping the first few moves.
loading...
How then would you account for the fact that the base of popular problems often suffer from erosion making reaching original start holds potentially more difficult?
loading...
Hmm . . . I have honestly never climbed anywhere where erosion at the base of climbs is so bad that original starting holds are unreachable, but I supposed that can (and does?) happen.
Obviously, the ideal situation is the presence of an obvious starting hold. In this case, the rules would be simple: start at the jug. If you need a boost to get there, so be it.
For those problems that do not have an obvious starting hold, more is left to the interpretation of the climber. If there are multiple similarly good holds in the same general area, I do not think it’s so important which ones are used. The only rules would be to start sitting on the ground for a sit start, and start off at most one pad for stands.
Erosion at the base and multiple possible starting holds with an undefined starting position seems to be the most confusing possible situation . . .
loading...
The first ascentionist determines the start of a problem. If you don’t like it, I suggest you talk to Sharma himself as even he has stated on many occasions that if you want to climb The Mandala, you need to start where he started. Nobody started Dreamtime at the lip after the hold broke. Instead, they accepted it would be harder and put forth the effort needed to send. It’s called the evolution of a boulder problem. I also suggest you look at Jamie Emerson’s “defining a problem” post.
loading...
I don’t think you’re paying any attention to what anyone is saying. Of course it would be stupid to start Dreamtime at the lip after it broke. That example shows absolutely nothing. No one is advocating skipping the hard part of the Mandala . . . if you read my post (the one you replied to), it says that people should start off one pad. You know, so they don’t skip the hard part. The exact starting holds don’t matter so much, because there is no super obvious place to start and also because breakage has changed the start sequence.
Also, I seriously doubt Sharma has “stated on many occasions that people need to start where he started.”
loading...
From the Bishop Bouldering Blog
“As an aside, it is worth pointing out again, that Chris Sharma’s problem The Mandala, as Sharma has mentioned to me himself recently, starts with the left hand on the low crimp, just his other landmark ascent The Buttermilker begins from the sit.”
How can you say the exact starting holds don’t matter much? If you would read MY post you’d see that a defined starting point is part of the definition of a boulder problem.
loading...
Hall monitor
loading...
Outdoor problems are based on the best way to get upa given line, no matter how hard they are.
loading...
Here are a few things to consider:
1. As narc proposed above, erosion has effectively made the start holds higher over the years. I remember being there back in the day and being able to reach the start holds off of the ground. There is now a 1′ stack of rocks to get the same position.
2. The start holds haven’t broken.
3. I’m average height (5’10”) and was able to start with the new method standing on one pad. The high hand is juggy and is the key for the start. You don’t really pull off of the undercling until you’ve pulled up into it. Sure, some people stack enough pads so that they pull off the ground already established in the undercling, but that isn’t as inherent to the new method as has been claimed by others.
4. Everyone starts with a high hand on the same hold. Starting the original way makes for a 3 move hand swap ending on the same hold! Would it be poor form to start with hands stacked on the high hold? To start one handed on the high hold?
loading...
Strange that Wills seems to be trying to call Alex out on his blog. I have been on the Mandala and tried it both methods. Moving into the undercling with the left hand is a V0 move which adds nothing to the difficulty of the problem. In order to use the new beta from the original start, one would have to do two pointless easy moves (most likely involving matching the good right hand) into the undercling which is in fact LOWER than the right hand starting hold. All of these technicalities seem to be a blatant and pointless attempt to trivialize an amazing ascent by Alex. Seeing that Lisa Rands did the Mandala using the old beta, I wonder what Wills’ motives for pointing all this out really are.
loading...
Wills has maintained the distinction (in terms of both difficulty and history) between the traditional method (going up right hand first with the right hand in the good incut) and the newer method for some time now. You would be hard pressed to prove that he is using this information to “trivialize” Alex’s send. His motives seem to be to maintain some integrity and honesty in the sport.
loading...
adds no difficulty? then why not start how it was meant to be and add those “two pointless easy moves.” I’ve actually been on the climb and they are nowhere near v0.
loading...
Did you read what I wrote? Trying it the old method (bringing the left hand into the undercling) adds a v0 move. I said nothing about how hard it would be to get your right hand into the undercling. However, if you want to do the climb with the easiest beta from the old start you’d have to do an awkward hand match move and then move into the undercling with your right hand which is lower than the original right hand start hold. If you’ve “actually been on the climb” you would know what I’m talking about.
loading...
The old method is harder…
loading...
This conversation is the most inane thing I have ever read. I want my five minutes back.
loading...
Wills Young provides some further clarification over the history of this problem
loading...