UKC

Following on from a chat with a mate, I have a quick question. Whats the difference between a short route and a highball Boulder prob? Take a 9 / 10 metre route for example. Boulder prob or route? Why?

In reply to BOOGA:

You use a rope or a mat?

In reply to Duncan_S:
Some people solo....

In reply to BOOGA:

Bit of an artificial distinction really, its all just climbing really. The style in which it was climbed and graded maybe?

In reply to Duncan_S:

Yeah, I think maybe. So if it's a boulderer who first climbs it, it'll be given a v grade and be highball and if it's a trad climber he / she will give it a trad grade? You do get routes with 'bouldery' starts..so maybe it is just a style distinction...Just interested to hear opinions.

In reply to BOOGA:


The difference is the style in which the climber approaches it; whether that's bouldered out above mats and spotters or soloed above the unforgiving ground. The grade will change according to that style.

Use Not to be Taken Away as an example. E2 6a to solo onsight or V4 to boulder out above mats. What the first ascentionist did is kind of irrelevant.

In reply to BOOGA:
When compared with Himalayan faces, all UK routes are highball boulder problems.

In reply to Duncan_S:


A bollox statement if ever I heard one. The difference between soloing something like, say, Psycho or ground upping it over mats = the difference between floating down into the arms of your mates and some cushions or landing in a world of pain and f*cking your ankles for evermore. That's hardly 'artificial'.

In reply to Andy Hobson:

You can fall of a vdiff and still be in a world of pain. Never fallen 30 feet onto a mat with spotters so couldn't comment there. What if I climb an easy boulder problems without matts and mates? Does that mean I need to start worrying about what trad grade to give it? It would still bolloxs really as a trad grade would be given taking into account protection available.

In reply to Andy Hobson: Perfect answer, it pretty much comes down to how you choose to climb it.

However, it is worth noting that personal style is always heavily influenced by what other climbers do and what is considered 'normal'. There are plenty of lines that used to be done as bold solos with nothing more than a square foot of carpet used to keep boots clean that are now done with 3+ mats and an army of spotters. This is reflected in that grades in some guides have changed from route grades to bouldering grades for many lines - NTBTA being a good example.

Therefore it makes sense that a line can have two grades and both can still be valid, although obviously you can't claim the route grade if you use a mat.

In reply to Duncan_S:


Well, that was kind of my point. If falling off lands you in this world of pain then you couldn't class it as a boulder problem - the point of bouldering being to make the landings as safe as possible. If the world of pain is likely then you could stick with the trad grade although be prepared to lower it if you're using pads.


See my comment re. safe landings.

In reply to Andy Hobson:

I doubt that if I used a mat it would class it as a boulder problem? The grades don't go that low. If the point of bouldering is a safe landing, does that means when I do easy boulder problems without a mat and a spotter they stop getting bouldering grades?

In reply to Duncan_S:

FFS you moron. Are you being deliberately thick or were you born that way?


Of course not. If they're classed as boulder problems already then it's probably safe to assume that they're fall off-able without a mat in perfect safety as it is. The OP was asking about the micro-route/highball problem distinction which conventional problems don't come into.

In reply to Andy Hobson:

Somebody had a bad day My point was it was all climbing to which you waded in unprovoken with it was complete bollocks. Other then that my reply was pretty much the same as yours. Its all climbing. I don't say, I'm going soloing or I'm going bouldering. I go climbing. Why get so worked up?

In reply to Duncan_S:

How about...

If a boulder problem is safer with a rope and gear, it is best described as a route.

If a route is not really helped by a rope and gear it is best described as a solo, unless it is low enough that a the risk of injury is low, then it is a boulder problem.

lsn

In reply to BOOGA: There are 6 or 7 metre boulders near me that get route grades, and I think they are justified because the landings and the fallzones are really really bad, ie you'd be certain to hit the ground head first or on your back if lucky and pads won't really make a differance. It's obviously not bouldering, so I think in those circumstances they can be called routes. Anybody agree?

In reply to BOOGA: Is it not time we accepted Mats in to the heart of British trad? Does it really matter? Isn't using a rope cheating just as much as a mat? I have deliberately not used a mat to claim the trad grade, when the mat has been 10 yards away, how do you explain that to a non-climber when you break your legs?

In reply to Duncan_S:

He's always like that...lol

In reply to Red Rover:

There are bigger boulder problems than 6-7m at Dumbarton. The Home Rule & the BNI must be 10m high and the routes on them are boulder problems. So no, I don't agree. Landing on your head is a bad practice in bouldering btw.

Davie

In reply to Franco Cookson:

>Isn't using a rope cheating just as much as a mat

Blah, blah, blah Franco. Try talking sense for once.

Davie

In reply to Wee Davie: In stead of talking shit, why don't you try and create an answer to franco's query?

In reply to Wee Davie: It is a perfectly reasonable comment. the perpose of a mat:

reduce the grade of a climb, by making a fall more safe.

use of a rope:

generally reduces grade of a climb, by stopping a fall being leathal.


If you could only solo routes, many E1s would be more like E3/4. Ropes reduce grades, as do mats.

In reply to DaveWarb:

Think yon fall may have given you a head injury Dave after all.

Davie

In reply to Wee Davie: Waste of space...

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Ropes don't reduce grades, ideally they stop you hitting the deck. Apart from that, they have no mystical properties.

Davie

In reply to Wee Davie: I know sometimes, franco talks some crap, but im actually quite interested to see what the reason is for Mats not being 'accepted' in Trad, when it does a similar Job to a rope?

In reply to Wee Davie: -like mats then? It is exactly the same.

In reply to DaveWarb:

Most folk don't plan on falling off so they don't carry mats. The gear for trad climbing weighs enough as it is. As for whether mats are accepted or not- who cares? If you need mats to protect yourself you will carry them.

Davie

In reply to Wee Davie: that's all fine, untill someone comes along and claims a route, only to be told that they used a mat and therefor it is a boulder problem- that i'm sure you would be one of the people with such an oppinion.

In reply to Wee Davie: You see, you can answer it... i have a similar feeling on subject, i've invested my money in one so i take it everywhere i can to get the most out of it, hey, i dunno i could have done something like smash my heal if i didn't have a mat.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

One man's boulder problem might be another's idea of suicide.
Some of the really micro routes probably are better as highballs. If the route is any good surely it doesn't matter?

Davie

In reply to Wee Davie: you are right of coarse.`

In reply to Wee Davie:
"Landing on your head is a bad practice in bouldering btw".

Wow you really enlightened us there.

In reply to DaveWarb:

It might be worth remembering that many of our current trad ethics were invented as a by-product of debates between loonies like Aleister Crowley, Oscar Eckenstein and O.G.Jones. Nobody ever said they had to make sense!!