UKC

If you parkour your 

So back in the 80s there were claims that Ron Fawcett's dog could boulder UK 6a. Apparently Big Ron had danced his way up some gritstone slab boulder problem. The dog just took a run at it and joined him.

If it's good enough for Big Ron's dog, it should be good enough for the rest of us!

... in which case I have 'done' The Buckstone Dyno (f7B) after all! 😁

If you use less holds to get up something surely it's better style? 😁

Fewer.

Less, since it could be argued that on real rock there are no discrete holds. There's just a continuum of geometry any part of which - from atoms* to ledges - could be used to assist in upward progress. It therefore make sense to treat 'number of holds' on a problem as a floating point number (possibly even a complex number to allow for imaginary holds) rather than as an integer. So 'less' is actually grammatically better than 'fewer' in this case.

* Pex Hill.

Less is more?

Individual holds clearly are a thing, so you're incorrect on a matter of fact there.  "Fewer holds" is correct.

But grammatically speaking, you're making the argument that 'hold' should be a mass noun, like 'clay'.  (Which can be used to make 'bricks' - if the bricks are a standard size and you have 'less clay' you would have to make 'fewer bricks'.)

If we say for the sake of argument that you're right about there being 'just a continuum of geometry', then that constitutes a convincing argument for saying that the ascent used "less hold".  "Less holds" remains wrong, grammatically, because a mass noun does not take a plural form.

https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/non-countable_nouns.htm

You are of course quite right here. Unless (a) 'holds' is the singular mass noun or (b) English grammar has exceptions or (c) English is a living language and  'anything goes' or (d) climbing has its own jargon above and beyond Standard English.

Actually I quite like 'less hold'.

I'm definitely the worst person to comment on grammar, but I think it could work either way, depending on the definition of hold/s. Especially if holds = area of rock, then less definitely works better than fewer.

Thank you, I am.

You're just being silly now, 'holds' is the plural form of 'hold'.  If we can't agree on that we can't even communicate with each other.

It's hard to argue with any of them.  I was responding to your very specific and quite technical (but incorrect) argument in your post above.  If you'd gone with (b), (c) or (d) in the first place I wouldn't have bothered to reply.  There's no point clarifying the rules if you refuse to accept that there are any rules.

Me too.  And it's grammatically correct according to the rules of English grammar if you accept that they actually exist, which is nice.  Looping back to what Alex said, "less hold" is better style.

more or less...

Oops, sorry, got the tone of that last one wrong.  I was going for something quite light hearted, didn't mean it to be nearly as pompous as it comes across.

Imaginary holds? How does that work? I've relied on imaginary gear many times, but never managed to use an imaginary hold.

Edit: Unless by imaginary holds you mean holds on a plane orthogonal to the plane of the route? I have used those. More commonly known as trees.

I think that was Billie, who Gill Kent got custody of. Yes Billie was a phenomenal grit technician

I find that most hard slab climbs rely on 'imaginary' holds. You just have to BELIEVE that the hold is there long enough to move on to the next one.