UKC

Bouldering first ascent details in guidebooks

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 The Pylon King 28 Oct 2014

I have noticed that all the books i have worked on never have first ascent details for any boulder problems.

Is it the norm that boulder problems don't get FA details, or is it just above a certain grade?
 remus Global Crag Moderator 28 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

I think it's just because a lot of the time it's not possible to track down who first did a lot of easier stuff. Done years ago etc.

Where accurate information is available I can't see any reason not to include it.
 JDal 28 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

We're working on a supplement to the Northumberland guides, largely consisting of bouldering stuff, and it'll have FA attribution where known.
 AlanLittle 29 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

I suspect a lot of the details are lost in the mists of time. When I were a lad, shortly before Jerry & co brought modern hard bouldering into the limelight, it was traditional to attribute the few classic, known boulder problems in the Peak & North Wales to Joe Brown.
 Offwidth 29 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

You need to get out more.
In reply to The Pylon King:

I looked at this in some detail back in 1998 when we were producing the first Rockfax peak Bouldering guide. We wanted to name problems in the book to help with navigation but didn't want to name problems without contacting the first ascensionists. Virtually where ever we looked, we got feedback "oh, so-and-so climbed all those back in the 70s" but then so-and-so couldn't remember which ones they had done. In the end we gave up since it did seem that most of the popular areas had been climbed on before at some time but not by anyone who would actually remember what they did.

In more recent years I think it is easier to find out who did what but when appears to be more elusive. There are certainly many problems that are easily as worthy ascents as any trad route, and they do deserve to be recorded, however that information will have to come from the people that climbed them. Adding this data to the UKC logbook entries would probably be the easiest way for this to happen.

Alan
In reply to Offwidth:


> You need to get out more.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Thanks Alan.
 goose299 29 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

It means he's a moody git
 Offwidth 29 Oct 2014
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Yet since '98 most of the known grit FA hard stuff across the counties has been successfully researched and described in guides. Most easier stuff is playfullness lost in the mists of time and none the worse for it. Ditto for a few other guidebook areas as well.

When easier areas are (re)developed knowing that many keen climbers (capable of stuff well into the F6 range and sometimes harder) did explore widely for their own fun, its only reasonable to acknowledge the redeveloper who has brought the area into a guide but it would be silly to claim a load of FRAs at these grades.
Post edited at 11:57
In reply to Offwidth:

> Yet since '98 most of the known grit FA hard stuff across the counties has been successfully researched and described in guides.

Mostly without dates though.

Alan
In reply to Offwidth:

So what is the threshold grade then?
 Offwidth 30 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:
That's up to those developing the area for publication and how likely the problems were climbed before. What depresses me is the level of ego sometimes on display on short easier routes where established guidebook climbs get new names after a claim of a prior ascent and where the routes were almost certainly soloed prior even to this new F(R)A, and in any case the historical context is pretty much irrelevant. Aside from being a sad ego display it makes the life of busy guidebook workers harder and is annoying for those logging climbs. I'd hate to see that come in on boulder problems as well. A way round this mess is to be clear names used in the guide are added for convenience of identification and imply no claim of FA, and to group claims where they are not regarded as significant by the guidebook developers.
Post edited at 08:53
 Offwidth 30 Oct 2014
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Sure, mainly without dates but this is the first generation of guides doing this and boulderers do know roughly when things were done and can start adding stuff like 'c1980' in the next editions.
In reply to The Pylon King:
Sourcing out info (such as FA) causes more work and delay but does not add much to the purpose of a guidebook.

I think FA are part of the history of a problem and of its place, just like down grading, up grading, broken holds, tree cutting, patio-ing, etc. It puts a line into perspective.

That said, the more info you have, the less mystery you can enjoy.

Personally, I take a lot of pleasure of figuring out a problem and I really really really hate when people ruin it for me (you know what I am talking about, when you are trying a problem and some ass turns up and tells you "how it's done").

A problem has to be a problem. That is why for me, a guidebook should display, the problem name (or number if no name), the grade as an indication, a photo or drawing with the line marked up.
Post edited at 09:34

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...