UKC

Bouldering - thanks very much Rockfax

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Michael Hood 13 Nov 2016
I never used to get at all inspired by bouldering, and I think a lot of that was to do with the bouldering guides that used to be out there, which didn't have much at all for a punter like me. Nearly everything wasn't just slightly too hard, it was way too hard (and out of reach unless I became significantly lighter, stronger, fitter, better, etc). So I tended to avoid it and do something like soloing 30 easyish routes instead.

However the Peak Bouldering guide from Rockfax has got loads of easyish stuff and lots of "easy" circuits. Finally, I'm actually inspired to go bouldering because there's loads of stuff that I can realistically aim to do.

So I'd just like to say, thank you Rockfax.
 The Ivanator 13 Nov 2016
In reply to Michael Hood:

Similarly the excellent Rockfax Dorset bouldering guide has given me some great days out and includes plenty of quality problems in the more modest grades (V1-V3 is my usual range). A labour of love by Ben Stokes that has positively shifted my opinion of Limestone as a bouldering medium.
 Mick Ward 14 Nov 2016
In reply to The Ivanator:

> A labour of love by Ben Stokes that has positively shifted my opinion of Limestone as a bouldering medium.

Totally agree. It was a real labour of love from Ben - and it shows.

And totally agree with Michael Hood's point. If bouldering guides have lots of reasonable stuff to enjoy/get going on, then you're encouraged to get stuck in.

Mick

 Offwidth 14 Nov 2016
In reply to Michael Hood:

The original Alan Williams peak guide had plenty of low grade stuff from the very beginning. The latest Rockfax is lovely but it dropped a lot of minor lower grade problems to meet the less efficient photo topo format and the balance of coverage at these grades is better in the definitives and the latest VP guide is a viable alternative choice now it has much more lower grade stuff than the original one. Rockfax also has some dumb grades given to newly included highballs (Boogle Boothroyd, Ivy Tree and Jolly Green Dwarf spring to mind... there were quite a few).
16
In reply to Michael Hood:

> So I'd just like to say, thank you Rockfax.

Thanks very much for this Michael. This is exactly what we intended when putting the book together and I must admit that I had a great time assembling those lower grade circuits. It was a big step forward from the 1998 Rockfax which really only touched the surface in this respect. We were also able to add many more problems (3400 in this guide compared to 1600 in the 1998 RF book) since each time you visit these areas you tend to find more usually just by following the chalk of others who have been exploring.

I am hoping to add this book to the Rockfax App over the next month using the new geolocation feature we have developed for the maps. This will use the phone's location services to drop a blue dot on our boulder maps. It is currently in development but should be rolled out with our next major upgrade to version 1.5 which should be available in the next month or so.

Alan

In reply to Offwidth:

> ....but it dropped a lot of minor lower grade problems to meet the less efficient photo topo format

This is not true. There are hardly any problems that were dropped from the 1998 guidebook and there are far more lower grade problems in the 2014 guidebook.

Alan
 Offwidth 14 Nov 2016
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
We record everything we know of on Peak grit at low grade on Offwidth and although the website is long overdue an update the source word files are all complete for the new guides. I can list the removed problems if you want when I have time. Of course there are more lower grades problems in the new guide as you've included new problems in existing areas and many new areas. Problems were dropped and some added in the transition from Alan's original guide to his Rockfax version and some from the new edition. The Liver at Burb south is a good example two problems missing from the new guide, one new one (and the second best problem at lower grades still missing ... an old eliminate on Flake and Scoop without the flake... Scoopy Do V1 5c)
Post edited at 10:23
10
 steveriley 14 Nov 2016
In reply to Michael Hood:

I bloody loved the Allen Williams/Jason Myers OTE guides but there's simply no comparison with the current generation of guides. Monster amounts of work and inspiring to use. Hard to get hung up on a few missing problems - 'guide' is a useful word - bouldering is about fannying around near to the ground and maybe even improvising a bit?
In reply to Offwidth:

> Problems were dropped and some added in the transition from Alan's original guide to his Rockfax version and some from the new edition. The Liver at Burb south is a good example two problems missing from the new guide, one new one (and the second best problem at lower grades still missing ... an old eliminate on Flake and Scoop without the flake... Scoopy Do V1 5c)

At the risk of getting into a pedantic exchange (which, of course, it already is) I have no idea what you are on about here. The 1994 guide by AW has 5 problems on the Liver. Our joint 1998 guide has what I reckon are the same 5 problems (not certain but the grades look about comparable). BMandB lists 7 problems. Vertebrate doesn't include the Liver. Peak Bouldering 2014 lists the same 5 problems plus the additional 2 from BMandB.

Alan
 Offwidth 14 Nov 2016
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

The new Rockfax and the earlier BMC guide have the same 7 problems on The Liver but don't include problems 9 (B1) and 10 (B0) from the 5 problems in the old Rockfax. Such missing problems are nearly all of the lowest grades and they add up across the volume to more than 'hardly any' and some of them are good fun.
8
In reply to Offwidth:

> The new Rockfax and the earlier BMC guide have the same 7 problems on The Liver but don't include problems 9 (B1) and 10 (B0) from the 5 problems in the old Rockfax. Such missing problems are nearly all of the lowest grades and they add up across the volume to more than 'hardly any' and some of them are good fun.

I think you'll find that problem 9 PB 1998 is the same as problem 6 in PB 2014, and problem 10 RF 1998 is the same as problem 7 PB 2014. The clue is in the identical descriptions and roughly equivalent grades.

Alan



 Offwidth 14 Nov 2016
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Thats your error but at least its understandable why they got left out now. There are not dissimilar graded problems on both sides of the boulder that match the descriptions. Problems 6 and 7 in 2014 are the same as the BMC problems above the rock step (visible on the right of the 2014 photo topo and right of 6 on the 1998 topo). Problems 9 and 10 from 1998 are just round to the left of 1 on the phototopo in 2014 and match the 1998 grades.
Post edited at 20:53
10
In reply to Offwidth:

Ok, so what you are saying here is when I wrote the Burbage South chapter in 1998 (it was one of mine, not Allen's) I was referring to different problems to the ones I wrote about in 2014 (it was one of mine, not Adrian's), despite me thinking I was writing about the same problems? It is possible that Allen wrote about different problems in his book in 1994 although positionally they look to be the same as the ones I wrote in 1998. I do acknowledge that it might have been better to have the arrows for problems 6 and 7 in 2014 book on the other side of the boulder in the photo. Not sure that any of this rather pointless exercise has established that we have "dropped a lot of minor lower grade problems" though.

Alan
 Offwidth 15 Nov 2016
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
The problems 9 and 10 marked on the east of the boulder in '98 match the grades and descritions there and roughly match the older AW problems. We grade checked 10 and some unlisted neighbours as VB 4a, so I still can't see where your V1 5b is round there (your topo maps in '98 were amazingly accurate.. a true labour of love). The BMC named problems, on the SW side, quite reasonably seemed newly listed to me, partly as the rock step they are next to was clearly marked on the '98 topo. You use the BMC names for those problems in '14 and they match your descriptions and your grades. The BMC topo also shows where they go (no arrows). Hence, I still don't know from what you are saying what exactly is wrong in which way in your guides (it makes more sense to me if you climbed the two BMC listed problems in '98 such that the positions on the '98 topo were wrong) but it is clear now that those two problems hadn't been left out in '14 so I apologise for that incorrect deduction. Our scripts, which we make public, are currently in error because of that deduction and correcting that is not pointless for me.

As for the original point there are 3 other problems missing on the B south valley boulders which are not posible to be mistaken identities. Otherwise the odd problems lost here and there add up. There is probably more than a handful behind the Roaches Attic, and some on the Froggatt Pinnacle boulders of just those I can remember off the top of my head... I haven't got a list and don't have time now and the odd one or two might also be mistaken identiites but we must be talking well into the tens.

Oh and on the plus side Heighly Castle was dropped and the back left of the far Skyline group and Eagle Tor ... and Eastwood ... left out down to your access concerns (so I wasn't counting them).
Post edited at 09:23
8
 Lemony 15 Nov 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Even by the lofty standards of guidebook criticism threads this has got weirdly petty.
 Offwidth 15 Nov 2016
In reply to Lemony:
Picky yes, petty no, as that implies negative intent. My original view remains: Michael said "which didn't have much at all for a punter like me. Nearly everything wasn't just slightly too hard, it was way too hard" and this is simply untrue. Michael should be thanking everyone, especially the original Peak guides which had plenty of lower grade problems and lots of little independent websites full of lower grade problems like Keith Turton's. In my opinion Rockfax '98 is a brilliant book for lower grade problems, the biggest step change in taking these grades seriously (when VG in their first volume headed in a more elitist direction), this is despite being a guidebook worker on the definitives and the fact they are better on coverage. Rockfax '14 despite being beautiful and increasing the coverage is only really marketing these problems better in a modern photo-topo format (better visually than the BMC photo topos).

On the specific Liver related issue: with our "Offwidth" site we provide the only public record that compares all the Peak grit guidebooks on routes and bouldering at lower grades... detail is important. I have admitted I got it wrong about the two Liver problems being omitted but there are errors in one or both of the Rockfax guides that caused this error. There are tens of minor problems omitted that were in the transitions from Wilson/ Myers to '98 to -14. This is nothing new in guidebook changes and I don't see what Alan needs to be so defensive about as like he says overall problem numbers have increased in the lower grades (and hes proving my point that the earlier guides were much better at lower grades than Michael claims)
Post edited at 12:59
7
 Offwidth 15 Nov 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

This is what we do if people don't realise:

http://offwidth.uptosummit.com/burbages_boulders.html
2
 Rocknast 18 Nov 2016
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Hi Alan.

Speaking of guides, do Rockfax have any plans of developing a guide to the Lake District area at any point on the horizon? This may have been publicly discussed previously but I am surprised that a recent one hasn't been developed already; albeit just a selective one for the whole area (similar to the fell & rock climbing club wired guide) as it is a large region as a whole and a lot to pack into one text.

J
Post edited at 09:55
 Pedro50 18 Nov 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> This is what we do if people don't realise:


Oh you mean difficult to read white font on a dark background!
1
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 18 Nov 2016
In reply to Rocknast:

> Hi Alan.

> Speaking of guides, do Rockfax have any plans of developing a guide to the Lake District area at any point on the horizon? This may have been publicly discussed previously but I am surprised that a recent one hasn't been developed already; albeit just a selective one for the whole area (similar to the fell & rock climbing club wired guide) as it is a large region as a whole and a lot to pack into one text.

> J

I suspect Alan is on his way to Kendal now. I think there is a Lakes Rockfax in the pipeline - exactly as you describe. Mark Glaister has been on with it for several years and if it is as good as his South West Climbs it will be a cracker,

Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs:

Along with the hopeful arrival of north wales bouldering by the end of year, this is great news
 Ramblin dave 18 Nov 2016
In reply to Rocknast:
> Speaking of guides, do Rockfax have any plans of developing a guide to the Lake District area at any point on the horizon? This may have been publicly discussed previously but I am surprised that a recent one hasn't been developed already; albeit just a selective one for the whole area (similar to the fell & rock climbing club wired guide) as it is a large region as a whole and a lot to pack into one text.

Is there a reason you can't just use the Wired guide for now? The reviews seemed pretty positive...

If I was going to stick in a bid for new Rockfax books, a couple of volumes on "the Pyrenees for punters" would fill a pretty noticeable gap in the (English language) market. But I guess that that'd be a lot of work for a relatively small audience...
Post edited at 15:22
 Rocknast 20 Nov 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Yes I already own the wired selective guide and also the one devoted to Langdale, my favourite area of the lakes. They are both excellent but like I said I just wondered if Rockfax would be publishing anything in the future.
 Rocknast 20 Nov 2016
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Thanks Chris, looking forward to South Wales sport climbs too! Yes West Country was a great one!

J
Post edited at 09:28
 Offwidth 21 Nov 2016
In reply to Pedro50:
Yes... people copy shit and use it to avoid buying a guidebook... locked content is on purpose to stop this, since we don't want to become part of 'the problem' when encouraging climbers buying as many guidebooks as they can afford (to safeguard futire production). Our intent is to provide information to let users compare other guidebooks with the ones they own and with the historical record; as yet no one else does this. We have enough people thanking us to make the effort worthwhile.
Post edited at 20:05
2
 Pedro50 21 Nov 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

A perfectly fair point, but still horrible to try and read!
 Offwidth 21 Nov 2016
In reply to Pedro50:
Sure, but you could, say the same about the information in a dictionary (an effort needs to be made to understand the format and meanings) . Its a deliberate reference work and deliberately not a guidebook. We have text files available for those working on guidebooks (including quite a few outside the Peak grit area)
Post edited at 20:46
 john arran 21 Nov 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> Sure, but you could, say the same about the information in a dictionary (an effort needs to be made to understand the format and meanings) . Its a deliberate reference work and deliberately not a guidebook. We have text files available for those working on guidebooks (including quite a few outside the Peak grit area)

Are you seriously trying to claim that difficult-to-read text on a modern website can be some kind of advantage or deliberate ploy?

I always thought your site and objectives seemed laudable but your contributions to this thread have painted a very different picture and IMHO have not furthered your aims or credibility, which is a shame.

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