UKC

Why do many climbing centres have (presumably expensive) featured walls, then set routes which exclude the use of the features at the grade?

It puzzles me, as the use of features-only generally weighs in at 7a or similar, so easier routes could be generated with fewer bolt-on holds which would presumably be cheaper, more rock-like and less eliminate in nature.

Interested to hear from those with some experience.

In reply to wayno265:

Why have you not posted this in the walls and training forum?

In reply to wayno265:

I always think routes which use features for feet are really advantageous because;
- they don't spoon-feed the climber with an obvious foot sequence so people learn to think for themselves about where to put their feet.
- there will usually be alternative footholds/sequences for different climbing styles/body types (so shorties can't hide behind the excuse that they cant reach a hold or whatever)

And marking features with tape for hands aswell supplies a load of holds for setters to set a problem around, especially if it is a prominent feature, it just makes a problem that little bit more interesting I feel.

This thread was started in the ROCKTALK forum and has now been moved.
Please could you try and post in the correct forum, it makes life easier for both users and moderators.

Walls & Training - Find out where the best climbing wall is in your area. Who goes there? What are the facilities like? Build your own cellar. Training tips and injuries info. It's all here. (And don't forget to check the Classified Listings which contain the UK's most comprehensive online database of climbing walls.)

More Forum descriptions - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/forums.html

In reply to Mike Goldthorp: Just the two of us then!

In reply to wayno265:

Redpoint, in my recollection, sometimes gives 2 grades for routes, one of which is with features (eg arete) and one without.

The Bear Rock sometimes used to do similar eg a route near a corner would be graded for "no Bridging" because it was set up at that grade, and as if it was on a flat wall with no nearby corner.

Perhaps those aren't quite what you had in mind, but then again I also recall that the general policy at The Bear Rock used to be that features were for feet only, unless specified otherwise.

In reply to Dominion: Redpoint is unusual in my experience in that the routes ARE graded for use of all features, aretes etc.

Other walls I use allow smears only for feet at the grade. Will be quite liberating to get outdoors!

you don't need to follow the route!
The other day a guy I climb with showed me a great route up a wall, rainbow for feet- and tiny tiny features for hands- great balance exercise!

Be inventive!

In reply to Evilllamas:


It ain't me that sets the routes.

In reply to wayno265:

At EICA: Ratho we have 3 x massive featured bouders with both feature only problems (for hands and feet) as well as coloured hold problems. We have a rule that features are allowed for feet on all problems, however, have built all the problems so that you can use feet following and make them harder! This accomodates everyone and I think is a very good compromise for those that want easier stuff and hard stuff!

In reply to wayno265:

Nottingham wall used to use the features for feet only, and used to specify it in their boulder problems, there was a list which would give you the panel, the grade and whether you were to use feet on holds or feet on features, not sure if they still do it that way.

Also, as well as redpoint with their "all features are in" policy, Creation are also very similar, they have a whole section of bendecrete that actually is just the features, there are no holds on it at all.

But I do share your sentiment, what's the point in having great features if they are excluded. I often rely on features as I'm not that tall and often rely on the use of a feature to be able to reach the hold.

In reply to wayno265:

Yeah - once you go outdoors you can use whatever hand and footholds you want, not just the correctly coloured ones! Most rock has loads more friction than painted wooden walls, so smearing is much easier too!

Once you've been out a few times reality hits and you begin to see indoor climbing for what it is: good for training when the weather's poor, and for some people a sport in itself, but only a very arbitrary representation of outdoors.

You find it no longer matters so much to you if you can't get up the light blue 6b+, because hey, on a different day the same or another route-setter might have placed the holds differently, or perhaps they had to place them there so as not to interfere with another route, or perhaps they were the only holds they had left in the bucket!

In reply to wayno265:

Well up in Aberdeen we always allow features and bridging unless the route was specifically set to exclude them. This is usually done to make the route harder, to limit the holds of choice especially on the more technically designed problems. Allowing all features plus holds usually causes the grade to plummet! That being said, we have several routes that are features only or that have very few bolted holds at all. Good for practicing your smearing.

While I agree that sometimes preventing the use of good features seems ludicrous, it is necessary for some routes. Most of the time we will exploit the unique features of the lines, whether they have chimneys/flakes/roofs but then again this is up to the specific setter.

Ironically I usually have to remind climbers to use the features on my routes as many seem to develop tunnel vision and don't look out for the extra features available.

Remember that most walls and setters are usually happy to get feedback from climbers......

In reply to wayno265:

When I set on featured walls I tend to find that I'll start setting with a particular set of moves in mind, and then see what the possibilities are with regards to the featured wall. In general I'll set along the lines of either 'Holds for Hands, Features for Feet' or 'Holds and Features for hands and feet.'

It's much easier to set using the featured wall for feet, and you're right, less holds does make the brain work a little harder.

As is said previously suggest to your wall a bit of a change and if they're open minded then it shouldn't be a problem. Finally, you should always feel like you can change the way you climb a route. For example if you climb a route that has holds and features for feet, try just doing it with features for feet. Just because it's not written down doesn't mean it isn't there to be climbed.

In reply to wayno265:

Because they can (adds flexibilty to setters) and because it simplifies matters considerably and because the lines may be better. Nottingham used to generate loads of interesting variations on their feature panels for boulder comps that kept a fresh feel to problems there (with a default: features in for feet but not hands). Now the comps are on wood panels they add volumes, again making a familar area feel new.

In reply to wayno265:
Rockcity in hull also uses the two grade system, one for just the holds and one if features are used for hands/feet (or only one). They also have 3 trad Walls that have no holds at all and are purely textured/featured, for bouldering they have a large featured cave and the 'moon' room upstairs which generally is volumes only (I think) although it does have some features.

In reply to wayno265: you can be abit limited with what you can do if all features are in

In reply to wayno265: Thanks for all the replies. To clarify, I'm not bothered on a personal level, just interested.

In reply to wayno265:

I'm an occasional route setter at Aberdeen and of the routes I've set, the one that got the most polarised opinions on quality was the one that made the most heavy use of features - lots of side to side movement required. Folk either seemed to love it or hate it as it probably was more like climbing outside in that you had to think and couldn't just follow the nice red (or whatever) holds.

The other issue with making a lot of use of features is that you leave yourself more open to setting a reach-dependent route, spanning from feature to feature, unless you include intermetiate bolt-ons.

Personally, I prefer setting on less featured panels as I find it easier to set to a particular grade because there are usually fewer sequences that will work for a given set of bolt-ons.

In reply to wayno265:

Features tend to cause problems for route setters and climbers who are based at a single wall for most of their time as they can become very familiar. This leads to routes being set at a grade using certain sequences that are essentially "local beta" and also to a lot of boredom for the route setters and locals alike when hard routes are compromised by the abundance of features; the suggestion that features cause you to think for yourself is a little null and void if you know the wall so well as to be able to climb routes using features only, it essentially means if you find a section on a set route you can't do you can just skip off on to the features....
The industry is certainly moving more and more towards flat panels and featured walls are considered a novelty rather than a necessity. This wouldn't be happening if features were truly of any benefit.

In reply to nasher47:


That doesn't necessarily follow. Perhaps the benefits of featured walls are being sacrificed for the cheaper costs of flat panel construction. Climbing walls are businesses! I haven't noticed any flat panels on crags, but perhaps indoor climbing will gradually diverge down its own evolutionary pathway.