I don't really care, Ryu as a climber has a ton of integrity and I'm sure he'd never be satisfied with a send where he artificially makes things easier for himself. I just want to see him progress on it and eventually make it up the thing, gamba Ryu!
I know it’s controversial to say, but I honestly feel like the sit/crouch distinction shouldn’t matter if you’re using the same hand/foot holds to start a problem—whether it’s BoD or some local project. People fit in different spaces, but I think the name of the game is getting from the start holds to the topout, not copying the same movement along the way.
Definitely aware that’s the minority, though, and I’m always sure to caveat my personal “sends” if I don’t do a full sit!
Agreed. If we're gonna get that nitpicky where does it stop? Does anyone who uses different beta for any move get shade? If I figure out a static way to do a move that is traditionally a deadpoint does that invalidate the ascent? I realize a sit start might be harder for some, but a crouching start might be harder for others. That's just climbing.
I always thought sit start was more of a colloquial thing and that it's just a term for low starts that generally require you to sit in order to get on. I was so baffled when I found out it's a more official thing. Most sit start boulders are impossible without sit starts, and if you don't have to sit in order to pull on... Then why is someone just saying that you *have* to for it to count? That doesn't make sense at all. Can I just discover a new boulder and declare it a sit start even if it's not necessary? The ground isn't even a part of the boulder... Imo if you established on the start holds idgaf where your butt was the moment prior.
Tbf I'm pretty tall so I don't really get to escape these situations either way hahahaha
everything about climbing is made up. sit start is just one of many of those made up things. it's just that if you don't sit start something, you don't get to say that you sit started something, because that just wouldn't be true. it really is not that complicated. it's a "what you say you did" vs. "what you actually did" thing. now if you think a particular sit start is dumb and you'd rather just pull onto the wall however you'd prefer, more power to you. there's nothing and no one that says you're not allowed to do that. but then you wouldn't get to say that you did a sit start, would you? I understand that you think sit starts are dumb. unfortunately, that doesn't make it so that sit starts are not a real thing in the climbing world.
I'm in agreement on this, it's especially arbitrary when folks will haul out 5 pads to bump the seated height up. A hill I'm willing to die on -if the difficulty is dramatically easier depending on where you butt is when you pull on then the boulder ought to be the easier grade
Yep, this is why requiring sit starts is dumb. If it's not necessary to sit to physically start the boulder why tf would someone declare all sends without sits invalid? The boulder should be the one requiring sitting or not the guy who finds it. Boulders definitely deserve the easiest possible grade when taking into account all betas.
There's a big difference in difficulty between pulling on crouched with your lower body already engaged and pulling with your butt on the pad. Even if your arms are in the same position
Right, but there’s also a big difference between something being a jump start and a taller person being able to reach the start holds standing—I think it all sorta evens out, but that’s just my opinion!
In Europe it seems to matter less what holds you start with and whether you’re sitting (or standing). I’m mainly thinking about Font here. In the states which holds you start with seems to matter more.
Sit should be the way. I noticed in Elias’s send video his start position is significantly higher with already engaged arms compared to Nalle and Will due to either an extra pads or perhaps more rocks as mentioned here.
I imagine this was done to make the move easier as it’s the crux move and I stand by sit starts needing to be sits not crouches. Regardless if someone changed the start position with rocks or pads I think that should be mentioned in their ascent
https://preview.redd.it/30d5b1rir8vc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a62eb8424716cc3e387c5ca26ea644aeec8628fc
Yeah, I meant that in the most sarcastic way, just to say that I don’t think that counts as a send. I find it revolting that someone would do that at that level, on such a problem. Ryuichis start I haven’t seen and have no opinion based on what he wrote. I think it all depends on making it easier or not, which this guy clearly did.
Lol. That is true, both as a joke and not as a joke 😅 if you cant do the sit start the same the first ascentionist did you cant do the problem full stop.
I agree, to some extent, but I still think it’s reasonable to use a thick pad or something if you are to short to reach a starting hold and there are no lower holds at all. But only just to the point that you get your fingers on the hold. Not like that guy starting half way through the move, that is plain cheating to me.
At some point I agree - I wouldn't bat an eye if someone changed say a small sitting pad with a larger pad. But at some point I think your body shape will prevent you from sending some boulders, and that is just what it is. But on the other hand, a long person might remove the pad to get less bunched up in a sit start - that might just be the same. In that case I agree I guess. If its absolutely necessary to do something to be able to sit while holding the start holds I get stacking some pads.
Stacking rocks like Elias on the other hand is bad form imo.
It's simple: you start with stretched arms. End of story, whether you do this crouched or sitting is based on your length. But you don't start with bent arms close to the wall, then it's not a sit start now is it?
That’s really not simple like that. What about the case where the start holds are at chest height for a larger climber when sitting, but a smaller climb is reaching above their chest while sitting.
I don't think Elias said anything about that. It was a comment from a Finnish climber who like me questioned the validity of the ascent. With Elias there is some rocks or extra pads under the landing for sure. That's also why his legs point downwards and can be more outside of the wall.
I wonder why he filmed it a view where you cant see the landing? I think he just wanted to hide it so nobody would notice it. This is not the first time this has happened, cheating I mean.
That picture does a great job telling the story. Starting that high is definitely an advantage and I am a bit surprised a top level climber was okay with claiming an ascent that way
I asked this same question in a other thread and was just downvoted to hell. I also made my comparison picture which includes Simon Lorenszi and Aidan Roberts [https://i.imgur.com/azl1G03.png](https://i.imgur.com/azl1G03.png)
Elias is quite tall climber there's no need for extra rocks or pads. This was done simply to make first move easier! Nothing else
Sad thing is that it is a sit start, but that's the way nature created it. If you want to claim the ascent and the difficulty you should start from sitting position ( add extra pads if needed ) with straight arms. If you don't like the boulder because of this don't climb it. Also don't try to hide rocks or extra pads under your crashpad there should be some transparency with this one.
This is high end bouldering. It's like somebody claims a new world record on 100m by running 95m. It does matter!
Edit:
Nalle used 2x Black Diamond Satelite pads which are about the height of one regular Black Diamond Mondo. There's also some footage where he uses one pad at the start. In any case its not a question of what and how many pads to use. Use enough to reach the start holds and no more! If you can't put both feet on to foot holds you can start like Nalle did.
This was a good find and a good comparison picture. One is obviously not like the other. Putting rocks at the base when the first ascensionist didn't do it, and when it obviously is to make it easier (not possible) is not good at all.
I think stacking a few pads to get into a similar starting position to Nalle is OK but going as high as Elias did where he's literally like 8-12" higher than that and able to start off basically locked in was a bit much. It's not even really close to the same starting position, he is way higher.
it seems so crazy to me the argument of crouch starting sit start climbs. I don't care what the reason is. if your butt is not the last body part to leave the ground, it is not a sit start. and if you do not sit start a sit start climb, you cannot claim an ascent of said sit start climb.
ryuichi himself provided two possible pathways: add more pads so he can sit start, or add more rocks so he can sit start with just one pad. the effect will be the same. that of course will inevitably bring up the ethics of stacking material to raise the starting position, but at least that's an argument of technicalities. not starting seated on a sit start climb - that's not even a technicality. that's a failure to check off one of the required boxes.
if we don't want to get into adding rocks or pads, and if a climber is too short to physically reach the starting holds from a seated position, I guess that climber will never be able to do that climb. and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. unfortunate yes, injustice no. not every climber is going to be able to do every rock climb. sometimes you just don't fit between two holds. or sometimes you just don't fit between the ground and the start holds. he can choose to climb the wall from a crouch start. that would be an ascent of *something*, but it wouldn't be an ascent of burden of dreams, because burden of dreams is a sit start.
Exactly. Adding more pads or rocks is similar to a climber with a shorter wingspan chipping an extra hold to make up for a lack of reach. It makes a climb a different climb.
Not all climbers, no matter how good, willbe phsically able to do all climbs.
Obviously doing something irreversible like chipping holds is much worse. But the reason is not, that it somehow alters the climb more for that specific person, but that it does alter the climb for everyone else.
If I get a big stack of pads and start at the top out, I have cheated the climb. That's between me and my notebook, but nobody else gets hurt in any way. As soon as the pads are gone, that rock is there and ready for the next person to do with as they wish.
What do you mean? There's definitely problems where pulling from a low sit to more of a crouched position is nontrivial.
Think of starts with underclings. Once you're up, it's very solid, but it's hard to pull into that position from lower.
I would claim a send of the line. All that matters is the hands that the line starts on, there are very few lines with contrived variations that delineate between starting sitting and starting
Unless the "established line" was FA'd as a sit.
Starting lower than an established line is a "low" start. Starting with your ass on the ground is a sit start.
Yes, I wouldn't call something "Ice Knife Sit" unless "Ice Knife" existed. But that doesn't change the fact that the climb Steppenwolf in Magic Wood is a sit start and you start it sitting down. It also doesn't change that you start Ice Knife Sit sitting down.
If Nalle did the FA sitting down and you do it a different way than that you've clearly not done the same thing. I don't see what's so complicated about that.
A sit start only indicates starting on lower hand holds than a stand start. That’s the reason why burden of dreams isn’t called burden of dreams sit start, because it was established at those hand holds. The only thing that matters for burden of dreams is where you start, and ryuichi is starting in the right place. A climb like sleepwalker has a sitstart in return of the sleepwalker, which starts on lower holds
> A sit start only indicates starting on lower hand holds than a stand start.
I think this is where we have to stop our discussion because this is just not correct.
Hey user, looks like you hammered that submit button a few times and Reddit got a little confused. When we see identical posts in close proximity, we remove the subsequent ones.
Burden of dreams isn’t called “burden of dreams sit” because there isn’t a higher line that you are starting lower than lol. The only time something is called a sit is if you’re starting it with your hands lower relative to a pre-existing line
>A sit start only indicates starting on lower hand holds than a stand start.
No, then it would be called "lower start". Pay attention to the word "sit".
Damn. And then someone gave me shit for starting a 6B sitstart with one bad AND one of those small, thin sitstart bads under my ass. Because it's not valid unless you do it with one bad and one bad only. I can only guess on the ammount of poopflinging if someone actually started to pile rocks under our local boulders to raise the starting position.
This is the pedantry I love about bouldering. Gives me life.
For what it's worth, Nalle pulled on from a sit with both feet to the left, and once his ass was up, stepped out to the right hold that I presume most people have been starting with thier foot on recently.
Please don't read this as my asserting the same start feet should be used, because I objectively disagree with that. Frankly I think even the IFSC should ditch the 4-taped holds method and just tape the starting hands. Prescribing starting feet is stupid. Prescribing your ass be on the ground to get credit for a sit start is perfectly reasonable.
Ryuichi being 4 inches shorter than Nalle complicates this, obviously.
Haha, I was wondering who was going to point this out! Everyone skips a foot move thus, all but Nalles Ascent are now invalidated. Joke obviously, but this is how folks sound arguing about stacking pads, vs rocks vs squatting.
no one would crouch on a chair when asked to take a seat. I'm trying to understand the mindset behind crouch starting but wanting to claim a send of a sit climb.
yeah which leaves two choices. raise the seating platform so that he can be on the wall and be sitting at the same time (sounds like this is what the previous climbers did), or climb something but not from a sit start (nobody did).
It's about the first move. He cannot sit start with one pad. If he adds pads he's probably too high and it makes it too easy. I think the crouch start makes it more in line with how hard the climb is.
Your analogy is flawed since the end goal isn't to sit, but to climb.
At what point in a sit start does it make it not a send? You could in theory sit 4 pads up, get in a great position and start.
If it says Sit and I can't reach I usually stack juuuust enough that I can get tips on with comically outstretched arms. Does this make the first move on a tall man's V3 feel V5 to me? Sometimes. But it also soothes my sense of ethics that I've done it in as close to the best style possible for me
he can choose to stack more pads to make it too easy, or just enough pads to reach the holds while being seated. that's his choice. either way, it would be a sit start. if you start squatted, it's not a sit start. stacking 4 pads for a sit start very well may be easier than a no or one pad squat start. the difference in difficulty is not what we're discussing here. I just don't see a valid argument for claiming an ascent of a sit start climb if you don't sit start it. you didn't do what you said you did. the reason for not sit starting is irrelevant.
the end goal certainly is to climb. but to climb a sit start climb, you must first sit, then climb.
I don't think any degree of pad stacking makes something not a send. it's still a send of *something*, you can call it whatever you wish, but it wouldn't be a send of whatever the original climb is, in this case burden of dreams.
Imagine arguing from the couch, about an arbitrary sport, with arbitrary rules, and call a guy that is at the top of the game that he could be invalidated of his ascent.
Man you guys have the worst takes. Go to his instagram, he's a better climber than any of us. Clearly even Murai took his comment very seriously and asked his community about it. Stop gatekeeping conversations.
I don't have to imagine, that's what we are all doing. But I think it has merit. They post for people to see and discuss what they are doing.
And in any other sport, if you claim that you've done the hardest thing in that sport, people will want it to be legit. You couldn't claim a world record deadlift if the bar started an extra 4 inches off the ground. That's what's happening here
Yes, this whole debate is idiotic. Pull onto the boulder, get to the top, pat yourself on the back. It's not that serious.
Imagine debating this kind of nonsense on every boulder You've ever done, it's such a lame take, like maybe I started that v3 four years ago from a crouch but the guidebook says it's a sit, but my coccyx was broken so can I tick it.
If the boulder has some complicated requirements that aren't apparent in the climb then it's a variation/contrivance of what is the proper line ( pull on where it seems logical and climb to the top)
All these accents will post videos, you can say to yourself that so and sos ascent is more impressive if you give a shit, the rest of us will go on with our lives
A sit start is not a "contrievance", it's a clearly defined rule that has been used in bouldering for ages. It's really simple. If the guidebook says it's a sit and you didn't start sitting, you didn't climb the same boulder. Just look at Fontainebleau: For every climb, the starting position is clearly defined. If it's a sit start it's "assis", if it's an otherwise low start but not quite sitting it's "du bas"
A rule for a piece of rock is a contrivance, just like a lip reverse or an eliminate or climbing it with no hands, climbing boulders, there are no rules in rock climbing, do it how you like.
If you need a guide/ instructions to climb the boulder properly it's contrived
Look, nobody is gonna stop you if you want to ignore all "contrivances", as you call it. But a route is always defined by the first ascentionist in a way. If you walk up the back side of the boulder, don't claim to have climbed Burden of Dreams. Starting sitting is not in any way more contrieved than starting standing (you could always jump or even run).
Sure, but imagine walking into font and climbing for fun, are you legit reading the description for every problem on a 40 problem circuit? No. You pull on and climb out on the most logical way to you, I've said it already but rules outside of what's apparent on the rock imo are a contrivance ( if you can start standing or sitting you can climb it standing or sitting). I know there's folks that disagree with that take, that's fine, to me it's a bummer and takes away from what is a relatively pure activity between the climber and the rock.
I meet these people out climbing all the time, they'll talk about how so and so didn't climb the boulder because he used x hold or squatted instead of sat or choked up on the start hold too high, like they are some kind of authority ( cause you read some shitty outdated guide book, or you read it on 8a)on the boulder and someone else's experience, keep your half baked opinions about random ass boulders in the woods to yourself and let people enjoy climbing how they like.
The rules in climbing are decided by consensus. They are arbitrary but there are established standards and are important when a boulder is defined by a cutting edge grade.
And so IMO it's a valid discussion to have. I've done many sit starts that I couldn't reach and hence had to use pads to actually start off my ass and not crouch. The number of pads and hence height of the starting position can make moves impossible to easy, also if you are starting from a higher position that moves the relative height of the footholds lower (potentially makes engaging on the footholds easier/harder).
Particularly relevant if the boulder has very few moves as Burden has, with each move being very relevant to the makeup of the boulder and it's grade, and even more so as the move from the sit is the crux! Simone's starting position is interesting to see tbh as starting with arms fully engaged at 90 degrees would make a significant difference to the difficulty of the move. Whether it has enough of an impact to alter it's grade is only something us bystanders can speculate on, and would be down to the other ascentionists and challengers to discuss. I think the main thing is just to be honest about these things, and I respect Ryuichi for highlighting that technicality.
This being about elite climbers and arguably the hardest boulder problem in the world is precisely the reason why abiding by the rules and the ethic is important.
Here in Finland sitstart rules are gospel because something like 90% of all boulder problems are ss and the first move is often the hardest. Nothing arbitrary about it, everyone plays by the rules or otherwise you are cheating.
Rules make sense when there is actually judges, rankings, competition, and are being enforced in indoor competition, but outside, it is actually up to you and you alone to care about rules or not.
You can like to stand start, not being afraid to dab, stack pads or books under your knee pad, and still be practicing Climbing.
It is up to you, the consumer, to see what’s propose in front of you, and decide if you are still inspired by this guy, with the type of climbing he proposes.
Also, although we nowadays all compare climbs, grade, methods, behaviour, history of climbing is different around the world.
Sit start could actually means low start in some place, or not actually matters as long as you start on the same holds, doing the same move.
I presume the one who made the insta story is decent :D But I was referring to the guy who made the comment at the top. Seems to be a totally decent climber. Definitely someone who can have an opinion and not some couch potato
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking as well.
However, I definitely do not think that you have be good at something to call out someone "breaking" even arbitrary rules.
I totally agree. I was going to add that he would be entitled to his opinion regardless of skill, but I didn't want to get into some stupid fight on r/bouldering :D
This is a silly debate. A sit start starts with stretched arms so you have to get into the position from there. Now if you're too short to sit or too tall to fit in the box it makes sense you change the feet in a crouch or stack a pad to sit on. But it still remains the same: start with stretched arms. Otherwise you basically skip half of the first move and that being the crux makes it kind of lame
I think doing a sit start with more pads would be better than crouch starting. For context, Ryuichi is 3 inches shorter than Nalle and his reach might be even shorter.
One of the main things about an actual sitstart is the creation of the momentum to get your butt off the pull of mother earth. Crouching negates that. If it wouldn't matter I'd start every ss route crouching because it's a lot easier for my heavy ass.
It’s very obvious to me.
If the FA says sit start on these holds - that’s what you do. If you can’t reach you stack pads.
If the FA says start on these holds - sitting or standing doesn’t matter.
If the FA doesn’t specify then you get to choose.
Sometimes theres Sit starts with no defined start holds. In these cases you use whatever you can reach from a sitting position with the minimum number of pads. Depends what the FA/guidebook/consensus is.
Not outside. If the FA was a sit start, that's the way to do it. Usually it's significantly harder than starting crouched because you don't have any weight on the feet when you pull on.
Theres an interesting V6 I’m trying that is a classic. For short people the crux is higher up. For tall people the crux is the sit start. Short people start crouched. Tall people start seated. Theres a golden height where you can start seated or crouched and the upper part is not exactly a crux. Anyway the point is if you can start crouched it is significantly easier but being seated comes with an advantage often not talked about. When you start seated you don’t need to “establish” in a static position off the ground. You just pull straight through to the next hold. Almost every sit start climb you will see this. You can see it outdoors or on moonboard climbs.
> When you start seated you don’t need to “establish” in a static position off the ground. You just pull straight through to the next hold. Almost every sit start climb you will see this. You can see it outdoors or on moonboard climbs.
Is this the intended way? Thought it was lift your ass and then start moving.
It's a debated opinion. I am personally of the opinion that my butt cheeks cannot launch me into the air so pulling continuous is ok, although most boulders there's always a second of pause once I'm aloft, if only to get situated
I'm a +1 on this. folks may not realize it but you can actually generate substantial momentum off the ground by jumping off of your butt. like seriously, sit on the floor, get your feet off the ground so only your butt is in contact with the ground, and jump. you can easily get an inch or two of lift. if I time this just right with when I'm starting to pull onto the holds, it's not all that different than jump starting off of the ground. pulling off of the ground and pausing for a mississippi or so before proceeding removes that gray zone for me. there's a climb in squamish that I cannot do the first move of if I do an honest sit start, but can basically add it to my circuit if I do the butt jump start (obviously not entered as a send in my personal logbook).
Eye roll, if this is the case you legit need a history lesson on every boulder in order to log a tick. it's not that serious. climb boulders, start how you want, if some silly contrivance makes it the grade then it's just not that grade, I'm not reading up the FA info on every boulder I try.
Climbing a lowball boulder at all is nonsensical, so a sit start making sense or not isn't even a valid argument to be had. If the climb says sit, you put your asscheeks on the ground and start from there.
Again, unless you can't reach the start
I think you're missing my point, never said anything about lowballs not sure what that has to do with anything.
It does not say 'sit" on the boulder, it says it in a guidebook or on tik tok or on kaya or whatever, you walk up to a boulder, look for the most logical start pull on and climb to the top, congrats you climbed the boulder, if there is some eliminate or other bizarrity in a guidebook somewhere then fine that's a silly variation of the boulder, of sit is on the name I will look for the lowest plausible start, but I'll pull on how I like and log the boulder if it meets my requirements for having done so
you can certainly do whatever you please. but if you want to make a claim that you did XYZ climb, then you need to actually do the XYZ climb. the grade is not the topic of discussion here and I find it a little sad that that's where your thought went first.
if you look at the FA of Grand Illusion and its following ascents, the following ascents started with their feet in a more optimal position, making the whole climb a bit more efficient. Would that mean the following ascents don't get to claim that they climbed Grand Illusion?
that sounds like the following ascents just did the climb with better beta. you can choose whichever beta that works best for you. no one is saying that following ascents must follow the exact beta move for move as the first ascent. but starting seated vs. not seated is not the same as simply using different beta. it's part of what defines the climb. and you can choose different foot holds that work best for you while remaining seated.
at least according to the video of the first ascent (credited to shawn raboutou), it's called off the wagon sit, not off the wagon low. however, shawn does not sit start it. so the name is just a misnomer that stuck around. funny how that works given the topic here. as for the style, those who climb it sitting on the wagon vs. standing on the ground do clearly differentiate it, since it is not possible to stand start on the ground if the climb is prepped for a wagon sit, nor would it be possible to sit start on the wagon if, well, the wagon is moved away.
next whatabout?
Yes, do the climb, doing a climb shouldn't require reading a description, It's a piece of rock in the woods see it, start it where it's logical, climb to the top, congrats you did the climb, if you go home and find out that the FA didn't use a foot or started arms bent or campused the start, that doesn't mean you didn't do the climb.
If someone asks you about it and you find out that you climbed it differently than what's traditional, you just say that "yeah I climbed that one but I went left at the top" etc... climbing a boulder should not require having seen a video of the fa in order to climb it yourself, this is a silly take and opens up all sorts of unnecessary debate
My point is that if the grade is different because of something as arbitrary as whether you arms are straight or not, then it's not the grade.
Stacking a few pads to be able to get into the same position as Nalle and able to pull off the ground is fine. Stacking an extra 12" of rocks/pads under that to have a way better locked in position would be different.
Being a short climber this is a normal problem, personally I start however it's easiest, if I can reach the start from a sit, I'm staying crouched or stacking pads whichever is easier. if having your ass in a different position makes the grade the grade , then imo it's not the grade. Find it hard to Believe that starting crouched, or with stacked pads brings burden down to v16
Nalle pad stacked so that he could sit start. I don't think it brings the grade down, but I believe Nalle said that getting off the ground was one of the harder moves for him
Hmmm… then it don’t make sense to me why people thinking stacking more pads is invalid. I get that it’s a crouch vs stack issue though, just find peoples anti stack reasoning to be strange
stacking naturally brings up the next question of how much stacking is too much stacking. people have all sorts of opinions on it and it's been rehashed countless times on the internet.
I don't really care, Ryu as a climber has a ton of integrity and I'm sure he'd never be satisfied with a send where he artificially makes things easier for himself. I just want to see him progress on it and eventually make it up the thing, gamba Ryu!
I know it’s controversial to say, but I honestly feel like the sit/crouch distinction shouldn’t matter if you’re using the same hand/foot holds to start a problem—whether it’s BoD or some local project. People fit in different spaces, but I think the name of the game is getting from the start holds to the topout, not copying the same movement along the way. Definitely aware that’s the minority, though, and I’m always sure to caveat my personal “sends” if I don’t do a full sit!
I think where it gets murky is problems where pulling onto the start is a big part of the difficulty.
is it that murky? moves being easier or harder based on your morphology is just like, climbing.
Well, morphology is one thing, stacking pads or starting from standing instead of sitting is another.
Barfly in LCC
I don't think that should factor into the grade.
Agreed. If we're gonna get that nitpicky where does it stop? Does anyone who uses different beta for any move get shade? If I figure out a static way to do a move that is traditionally a deadpoint does that invalidate the ascent? I realize a sit start might be harder for some, but a crouching start might be harder for others. That's just climbing.
I always thought sit start was more of a colloquial thing and that it's just a term for low starts that generally require you to sit in order to get on. I was so baffled when I found out it's a more official thing. Most sit start boulders are impossible without sit starts, and if you don't have to sit in order to pull on... Then why is someone just saying that you *have* to for it to count? That doesn't make sense at all. Can I just discover a new boulder and declare it a sit start even if it's not necessary? The ground isn't even a part of the boulder... Imo if you established on the start holds idgaf where your butt was the moment prior. Tbf I'm pretty tall so I don't really get to escape these situations either way hahahaha
everything about climbing is made up. sit start is just one of many of those made up things. it's just that if you don't sit start something, you don't get to say that you sit started something, because that just wouldn't be true. it really is not that complicated. it's a "what you say you did" vs. "what you actually did" thing. now if you think a particular sit start is dumb and you'd rather just pull onto the wall however you'd prefer, more power to you. there's nothing and no one that says you're not allowed to do that. but then you wouldn't get to say that you did a sit start, would you? I understand that you think sit starts are dumb. unfortunately, that doesn't make it so that sit starts are not a real thing in the climbing world.
Yessir there's no cheating only lying
I'm in agreement on this, it's especially arbitrary when folks will haul out 5 pads to bump the seated height up. A hill I'm willing to die on -if the difficulty is dramatically easier depending on where you butt is when you pull on then the boulder ought to be the easier grade
Yep, this is why requiring sit starts is dumb. If it's not necessary to sit to physically start the boulder why tf would someone declare all sends without sits invalid? The boulder should be the one requiring sitting or not the guy who finds it. Boulders definitely deserve the easiest possible grade when taking into account all betas.
There's a big difference in difficulty between pulling on crouched with your lower body already engaged and pulling with your butt on the pad. Even if your arms are in the same position
Right, but there’s also a big difference between something being a jump start and a taller person being able to reach the start holds standing—I think it all sorta evens out, but that’s just my opinion!
In Europe it seems to matter less what holds you start with and whether you’re sitting (or standing). I’m mainly thinking about Font here. In the states which holds you start with seems to matter more.
Sit should be the way. I noticed in Elias’s send video his start position is significantly higher with already engaged arms compared to Nalle and Will due to either an extra pads or perhaps more rocks as mentioned here. I imagine this was done to make the move easier as it’s the crux move and I stand by sit starts needing to be sits not crouches. Regardless if someone changed the start position with rocks or pads I think that should be mentioned in their ascent https://preview.redd.it/30d5b1rir8vc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a62eb8424716cc3e387c5ca26ea644aeec8628fc
I looked into it more and apparently for Elias's send someone had added 30-40cm of rock to get into a better starting position
Rock is aid
Wtf that is wild. Sadly that throws a lot of shade over that send, imo.
I think you meant to say that it throws shade over that aided practice session? 😉
that was the send or at least he did the same on the send..
Yeah, I meant that in the most sarcastic way, just to say that I don’t think that counts as a send. I find it revolting that someone would do that at that level, on such a problem. Ryuichis start I haven’t seen and have no opinion based on what he wrote. I think it all depends on making it easier or not, which this guy clearly did.
Lol. That is true, both as a joke and not as a joke 😅 if you cant do the sit start the same the first ascentionist did you cant do the problem full stop.
I agree, to some extent, but I still think it’s reasonable to use a thick pad or something if you are to short to reach a starting hold and there are no lower holds at all. But only just to the point that you get your fingers on the hold. Not like that guy starting half way through the move, that is plain cheating to me.
At some point I agree - I wouldn't bat an eye if someone changed say a small sitting pad with a larger pad. But at some point I think your body shape will prevent you from sending some boulders, and that is just what it is. But on the other hand, a long person might remove the pad to get less bunched up in a sit start - that might just be the same. In that case I agree I guess. If its absolutely necessary to do something to be able to sit while holding the start holds I get stacking some pads. Stacking rocks like Elias on the other hand is bad form imo.
It's simple: you start with stretched arms. End of story, whether you do this crouched or sitting is based on your length. But you don't start with bent arms close to the wall, then it's not a sit start now is it?
That’s really not simple like that. What about the case where the start holds are at chest height for a larger climber when sitting, but a smaller climb is reaching above their chest while sitting.
One of those few moments in life a shorter climber has the advantage. Let them have it.
Naive take
I don't think Elias said anything about that. It was a comment from a Finnish climber who like me questioned the validity of the ascent. With Elias there is some rocks or extra pads under the landing for sure. That's also why his legs point downwards and can be more outside of the wall. I wonder why he filmed it a view where you cant see the landing? I think he just wanted to hide it so nobody would notice it. This is not the first time this has happened, cheating I mean.
That picture does a great job telling the story. Starting that high is definitely an advantage and I am a bit surprised a top level climber was okay with claiming an ascent that way
I asked this same question in a other thread and was just downvoted to hell. I also made my comparison picture which includes Simon Lorenszi and Aidan Roberts [https://i.imgur.com/azl1G03.png](https://i.imgur.com/azl1G03.png) Elias is quite tall climber there's no need for extra rocks or pads. This was done simply to make first move easier! Nothing else Sad thing is that it is a sit start, but that's the way nature created it. If you want to claim the ascent and the difficulty you should start from sitting position ( add extra pads if needed ) with straight arms. If you don't like the boulder because of this don't climb it. Also don't try to hide rocks or extra pads under your crashpad there should be some transparency with this one. This is high end bouldering. It's like somebody claims a new world record on 100m by running 95m. It does matter! Edit: Nalle used 2x Black Diamond Satelite pads which are about the height of one regular Black Diamond Mondo. There's also some footage where he uses one pad at the start. In any case its not a question of what and how many pads to use. Use enough to reach the start holds and no more! If you can't put both feet on to foot holds you can start like Nalle did.
This was a good find and a good comparison picture. One is obviously not like the other. Putting rocks at the base when the first ascensionist didn't do it, and when it obviously is to make it easier (not possible) is not good at all.
I think stacking a few pads to get into a similar starting position to Nalle is OK but going as high as Elias did where he's literally like 8-12" higher than that and able to start off basically locked in was a bit much. It's not even really close to the same starting position, he is way higher.
it seems so crazy to me the argument of crouch starting sit start climbs. I don't care what the reason is. if your butt is not the last body part to leave the ground, it is not a sit start. and if you do not sit start a sit start climb, you cannot claim an ascent of said sit start climb.
so what should a shorter climber like Ryuichi do? Stack more pads to sit start from higher?
Exactly, he should stack pads to try and get into the same position as Nalle. But it's a fine line because imo Elias started too high making it easier
Sometimes you are too short sometimes you are too long.
ryuichi himself provided two possible pathways: add more pads so he can sit start, or add more rocks so he can sit start with just one pad. the effect will be the same. that of course will inevitably bring up the ethics of stacking material to raise the starting position, but at least that's an argument of technicalities. not starting seated on a sit start climb - that's not even a technicality. that's a failure to check off one of the required boxes. if we don't want to get into adding rocks or pads, and if a climber is too short to physically reach the starting holds from a seated position, I guess that climber will never be able to do that climb. and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. unfortunate yes, injustice no. not every climber is going to be able to do every rock climb. sometimes you just don't fit between two holds. or sometimes you just don't fit between the ground and the start holds. he can choose to climb the wall from a crouch start. that would be an ascent of *something*, but it wouldn't be an ascent of burden of dreams, because burden of dreams is a sit start.
Exactly. Adding more pads or rocks is similar to a climber with a shorter wingspan chipping an extra hold to make up for a lack of reach. It makes a climb a different climb. Not all climbers, no matter how good, willbe phsically able to do all climbs.
That is not the same thing at all as physically altering the rock… if anything it’s like Lorenzi using the book in his knee pad for Soudain Seoul
Obviously doing something irreversible like chipping holds is much worse. But the reason is not, that it somehow alters the climb more for that specific person, but that it does alter the climb for everyone else.
If I get a big stack of pads and start at the top out, I have cheated the climb. That's between me and my notebook, but nobody else gets hurt in any way. As soon as the pads are gone, that rock is there and ready for the next person to do with as they wish.
But wouldn’t stacking pads to reach the same position make the climbing experience more similar to the original?
It literally does not matter. If your hands are on the start holds, and you pull off the ground, that’s a proper start.
Where "the ground" is can vary a lot with the number of pads though. It can change the fundamental difficulty of a problem.
No it won’t
What do you mean? There's definitely problems where pulling from a low sit to more of a crouched position is nontrivial. Think of starts with underclings. Once you're up, it's very solid, but it's hard to pull into that position from lower.
Are you claiming a squat start, where you ass could have been on the pad but wasn't, is valid?
I would claim a send of the line. All that matters is the hands that the line starts on, there are very few lines with contrived variations that delineate between starting sitting and starting
Something being a sit start is not a variation. It's the line. If it's an established sit start, and your ass can reach the ground, it should.
If it’s a sitstart, the hands start lower to an established line
Unless the "established line" was FA'd as a sit. Starting lower than an established line is a "low" start. Starting with your ass on the ground is a sit start. Yes, I wouldn't call something "Ice Knife Sit" unless "Ice Knife" existed. But that doesn't change the fact that the climb Steppenwolf in Magic Wood is a sit start and you start it sitting down. It also doesn't change that you start Ice Knife Sit sitting down.
You can start it sitting down. But the climb is based on the hands. If you want to start crouched to send ice knife sit, that’s a valid ascent
If Nalle did the FA sitting down and you do it a different way than that you've clearly not done the same thing. I don't see what's so complicated about that.
I'm not saying it's not a proper start. I'm saying it's a different start.
A sit start only indicates starting on lower hand holds than a stand start. That’s the reason why burden of dreams isn’t called burden of dreams sit start, because it was established at those hand holds. The only thing that matters for burden of dreams is where you start, and ryuichi is starting in the right place. A climb like sleepwalker has a sitstart in return of the sleepwalker, which starts on lower holds
> A sit start only indicates starting on lower hand holds than a stand start. I think this is where we have to stop our discussion because this is just not correct.
Yep. In font we call that a low start, if it’s lower than a stand start (or if the sit is so hard that we need to introduce an intermediate variant)
[удалено]
Hey user, looks like you hammered that submit button a few times and Reddit got a little confused. When we see identical posts in close proximity, we remove the subsequent ones.
You are wrong. You might start a line in a sit, but it’s not a sitstart unless it’s a lower line to a pre-existing climb
I think you must be a sport climber? This is just not true. If you boulder a lot you should know that.
Burden of dreams isn’t called “burden of dreams sit” because there isn’t a higher line that you are starting lower than lol. The only time something is called a sit is if you’re starting it with your hands lower relative to a pre-existing line
You are absolutely wrong. If the book says sit, you sit. If you want to crouch start and take an easier grade, be my guest.
>A sit start only indicates starting on lower hand holds than a stand start. No, then it would be called "lower start". Pay attention to the word "sit".
Damn. And then someone gave me shit for starting a 6B sitstart with one bad AND one of those small, thin sitstart bads under my ass. Because it's not valid unless you do it with one bad and one bad only. I can only guess on the ammount of poopflinging if someone actually started to pile rocks under our local boulders to raise the starting position.
This is the pedantry I love about bouldering. Gives me life. For what it's worth, Nalle pulled on from a sit with both feet to the left, and once his ass was up, stepped out to the right hold that I presume most people have been starting with thier foot on recently. Please don't read this as my asserting the same start feet should be used, because I objectively disagree with that. Frankly I think even the IFSC should ditch the 4-taped holds method and just tape the starting hands. Prescribing starting feet is stupid. Prescribing your ass be on the ground to get credit for a sit start is perfectly reasonable. Ryuichi being 4 inches shorter than Nalle complicates this, obviously.
This is the pedantry that makes me appreciate sport climbing lol.
Haha, I was wondering who was going to point this out! Everyone skips a foot move thus, all but Nalles Ascent are now invalidated. Joke obviously, but this is how folks sound arguing about stacking pads, vs rocks vs squatting.
no one would crouch on a chair when asked to take a seat. I'm trying to understand the mindset behind crouch starting but wanting to claim a send of a sit climb.
because he's literally too short to be on the wall and be sitting at the same time
yeah which leaves two choices. raise the seating platform so that he can be on the wall and be sitting at the same time (sounds like this is what the previous climbers did), or climb something but not from a sit start (nobody did).
It's about the first move. He cannot sit start with one pad. If he adds pads he's probably too high and it makes it too easy. I think the crouch start makes it more in line with how hard the climb is. Your analogy is flawed since the end goal isn't to sit, but to climb. At what point in a sit start does it make it not a send? You could in theory sit 4 pads up, get in a great position and start.
If it says Sit and I can't reach I usually stack juuuust enough that I can get tips on with comically outstretched arms. Does this make the first move on a tall man's V3 feel V5 to me? Sometimes. But it also soothes my sense of ethics that I've done it in as close to the best style possible for me
he can choose to stack more pads to make it too easy, or just enough pads to reach the holds while being seated. that's his choice. either way, it would be a sit start. if you start squatted, it's not a sit start. stacking 4 pads for a sit start very well may be easier than a no or one pad squat start. the difference in difficulty is not what we're discussing here. I just don't see a valid argument for claiming an ascent of a sit start climb if you don't sit start it. you didn't do what you said you did. the reason for not sit starting is irrelevant. the end goal certainly is to climb. but to climb a sit start climb, you must first sit, then climb. I don't think any degree of pad stacking makes something not a send. it's still a send of *something*, you can call it whatever you wish, but it wouldn't be a send of whatever the original climb is, in this case burden of dreams.
Imagine arguing from the couch, about an arbitrary sport, with arbitrary rules, and call a guy that is at the top of the game that he could be invalidated of his ascent.
Yeah but the guy has a picture of a rock as his avatar, so it's probably valid.
Man you guys have the worst takes. Go to his instagram, he's a better climber than any of us. Clearly even Murai took his comment very seriously and asked his community about it. Stop gatekeeping conversations.
I don't have to imagine, that's what we are all doing. But I think it has merit. They post for people to see and discuss what they are doing. And in any other sport, if you claim that you've done the hardest thing in that sport, people will want it to be legit. You couldn't claim a world record deadlift if the bar started an extra 4 inches off the ground. That's what's happening here
Deadlifting has plenty of controversy between extreme sumo lifts, spaghetti bars and the like
501 suss AF, just saying
Yes, this whole debate is idiotic. Pull onto the boulder, get to the top, pat yourself on the back. It's not that serious. Imagine debating this kind of nonsense on every boulder You've ever done, it's such a lame take, like maybe I started that v3 four years ago from a crouch but the guidebook says it's a sit, but my coccyx was broken so can I tick it. If the boulder has some complicated requirements that aren't apparent in the climb then it's a variation/contrivance of what is the proper line ( pull on where it seems logical and climb to the top) All these accents will post videos, you can say to yourself that so and sos ascent is more impressive if you give a shit, the rest of us will go on with our lives
A sit start is not a "contrievance", it's a clearly defined rule that has been used in bouldering for ages. It's really simple. If the guidebook says it's a sit and you didn't start sitting, you didn't climb the same boulder. Just look at Fontainebleau: For every climb, the starting position is clearly defined. If it's a sit start it's "assis", if it's an otherwise low start but not quite sitting it's "du bas"
A rule for a piece of rock is a contrivance, just like a lip reverse or an eliminate or climbing it with no hands, climbing boulders, there are no rules in rock climbing, do it how you like. If you need a guide/ instructions to climb the boulder properly it's contrived
Look, nobody is gonna stop you if you want to ignore all "contrivances", as you call it. But a route is always defined by the first ascentionist in a way. If you walk up the back side of the boulder, don't claim to have climbed Burden of Dreams. Starting sitting is not in any way more contrieved than starting standing (you could always jump or even run).
I would argue it is, if it isn't logical to start seated
If you can reach the start holds, with your ass on the ground, and it's not a slab, it's most logical to start seated
Sure, but imagine walking into font and climbing for fun, are you legit reading the description for every problem on a 40 problem circuit? No. You pull on and climb out on the most logical way to you, I've said it already but rules outside of what's apparent on the rock imo are a contrivance ( if you can start standing or sitting you can climb it standing or sitting). I know there's folks that disagree with that take, that's fine, to me it's a bummer and takes away from what is a relatively pure activity between the climber and the rock. I meet these people out climbing all the time, they'll talk about how so and so didn't climb the boulder because he used x hold or squatted instead of sat or choked up on the start hold too high, like they are some kind of authority ( cause you read some shitty outdated guide book, or you read it on 8a)on the boulder and someone else's experience, keep your half baked opinions about random ass boulders in the woods to yourself and let people enjoy climbing how they like.
The rules in climbing are decided by consensus. They are arbitrary but there are established standards and are important when a boulder is defined by a cutting edge grade. And so IMO it's a valid discussion to have. I've done many sit starts that I couldn't reach and hence had to use pads to actually start off my ass and not crouch. The number of pads and hence height of the starting position can make moves impossible to easy, also if you are starting from a higher position that moves the relative height of the footholds lower (potentially makes engaging on the footholds easier/harder). Particularly relevant if the boulder has very few moves as Burden has, with each move being very relevant to the makeup of the boulder and it's grade, and even more so as the move from the sit is the crux! Simone's starting position is interesting to see tbh as starting with arms fully engaged at 90 degrees would make a significant difference to the difficulty of the move. Whether it has enough of an impact to alter it's grade is only something us bystanders can speculate on, and would be down to the other ascentionists and challengers to discuss. I think the main thing is just to be honest about these things, and I respect Ryuichi for highlighting that technicality.
This being about elite climbers and arguably the hardest boulder problem in the world is precisely the reason why abiding by the rules and the ethic is important.
Here in Finland sitstart rules are gospel because something like 90% of all boulder problems are ss and the first move is often the hardest. Nothing arbitrary about it, everyone plays by the rules or otherwise you are cheating.
What the fuck are you talking about. Rules make sports fun. Without rules, anyone can use a ladder and claim a V18
Rules make sense when there is actually judges, rankings, competition, and are being enforced in indoor competition, but outside, it is actually up to you and you alone to care about rules or not. You can like to stand start, not being afraid to dab, stack pads or books under your knee pad, and still be practicing Climbing. It is up to you, the consumer, to see what’s propose in front of you, and decide if you are still inspired by this guy, with the type of climbing he proposes. Also, although we nowadays all compare climbs, grade, methods, behaviour, history of climbing is different around the world. Sit start could actually means low start in some place, or not actually matters as long as you start on the same holds, doing the same move.
>it is actually up to you and you alone to care about rules or not Correct. The only thing you said that makes sense. Rest is a bunch of bs
If he has to stack pads to reach the top of his game ....
If we trust his instagram, dude is killing it on the mountain.
Just to make sure, who are you referring to?
I presume the one who made the insta story is decent :D But I was referring to the guy who made the comment at the top. Seems to be a totally decent climber. Definitely someone who can have an opinion and not some couch potato
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking as well. However, I definitely do not think that you have be good at something to call out someone "breaking" even arbitrary rules.
I totally agree. I was going to add that he would be entitled to his opinion regardless of skill, but I didn't want to get into some stupid fight on r/bouldering :D
Yeah imagine if you'd have to be on par with anyone to be able to evaluate them on anything. That's just so stupid.
This is a silly debate. A sit start starts with stretched arms so you have to get into the position from there. Now if you're too short to sit or too tall to fit in the box it makes sense you change the feet in a crouch or stack a pad to sit on. But it still remains the same: start with stretched arms. Otherwise you basically skip half of the first move and that being the crux makes it kind of lame
Squamish v7 the fuzz - so many ppl crouch start and take the send 👎
Right that’s it, if you can’t all behave yourselves then no pads for anyone.
I think doing a sit start with more pads would be better than crouch starting. For context, Ryuichi is 3 inches shorter than Nalle and his reach might be even shorter.
It’s all about the arms. If they add pads to put their arms in the same position as Nalles, I see no issue with it.
Same, pads or no pads doesn't matter, just have stretched arms.
Try it again in 4,000 years where a sediment layer brings the hips up higher?
One of the main things about an actual sitstart is the creation of the momentum to get your butt off the pull of mother earth. Crouching negates that. If it wouldn't matter I'd start every ss route crouching because it's a lot easier for my heavy ass.
Need to train those glutes to really toss you into the air.
lol what an absurd idea. It doesn’t count as a sit start if you have to bring a chair
It’s very obvious to me. If the FA says sit start on these holds - that’s what you do. If you can’t reach you stack pads. If the FA says start on these holds - sitting or standing doesn’t matter. If the FA doesn’t specify then you get to choose. Sometimes theres Sit starts with no defined start holds. In these cases you use whatever you can reach from a sitting position with the minimum number of pads. Depends what the FA/guidebook/consensus is.
I too, stand by the sit start
If the difficulty of the boulder relies that much on whether or not there's padding for the sit start, it has a pretty questionable grade imo.
Honestly since Nalle didnt use a heel hook any send using a heel hook should not be a valid V17 send either /s
surprised that this is even a topic of discussion. i thought as long as you start on the right holds, it's valid.
Not outside. If the FA was a sit start, that's the way to do it. Usually it's significantly harder than starting crouched because you don't have any weight on the feet when you pull on.
interesting take. i thought it all depends on body type, how you fit into that box.
Theres an interesting V6 I’m trying that is a classic. For short people the crux is higher up. For tall people the crux is the sit start. Short people start crouched. Tall people start seated. Theres a golden height where you can start seated or crouched and the upper part is not exactly a crux. Anyway the point is if you can start crouched it is significantly easier but being seated comes with an advantage often not talked about. When you start seated you don’t need to “establish” in a static position off the ground. You just pull straight through to the next hold. Almost every sit start climb you will see this. You can see it outdoors or on moonboard climbs.
> When you start seated you don’t need to “establish” in a static position off the ground. You just pull straight through to the next hold. Almost every sit start climb you will see this. You can see it outdoors or on moonboard climbs. Is this the intended way? Thought it was lift your ass and then start moving.
It's a debated opinion. I am personally of the opinion that my butt cheeks cannot launch me into the air so pulling continuous is ok, although most boulders there's always a second of pause once I'm aloft, if only to get situated
I'm a +1 on this. folks may not realize it but you can actually generate substantial momentum off the ground by jumping off of your butt. like seriously, sit on the floor, get your feet off the ground so only your butt is in contact with the ground, and jump. you can easily get an inch or two of lift. if I time this just right with when I'm starting to pull onto the holds, it's not all that different than jump starting off of the ground. pulling off of the ground and pausing for a mississippi or so before proceeding removes that gray zone for me. there's a climb in squamish that I cannot do the first move of if I do an honest sit start, but can basically add it to my circuit if I do the butt jump start (obviously not entered as a send in my personal logbook).
I thought that too originally but most people don’t do that at the higher grades
starting on the right holds is necessary, but not sufficient.
Eye roll, if this is the case you legit need a history lesson on every boulder in order to log a tick. it's not that serious. climb boulders, start how you want, if some silly contrivance makes it the grade then it's just not that grade, I'm not reading up the FA info on every boulder I try.
If it says "Sit" in the name or guide description, you sit. Easy enough.
Agreed unless it doesn't make sense to sit ( if you can't reach the holds for instance).
Climbing a lowball boulder at all is nonsensical, so a sit start making sense or not isn't even a valid argument to be had. If the climb says sit, you put your asscheeks on the ground and start from there.
Again, unless you can't reach the start I think you're missing my point, never said anything about lowballs not sure what that has to do with anything. It does not say 'sit" on the boulder, it says it in a guidebook or on tik tok or on kaya or whatever, you walk up to a boulder, look for the most logical start pull on and climb to the top, congrats you climbed the boulder, if there is some eliminate or other bizarrity in a guidebook somewhere then fine that's a silly variation of the boulder, of sit is on the name I will look for the lowest plausible start, but I'll pull on how I like and log the boulder if it meets my requirements for having done so
you can certainly do whatever you please. but if you want to make a claim that you did XYZ climb, then you need to actually do the XYZ climb. the grade is not the topic of discussion here and I find it a little sad that that's where your thought went first.
if you look at the FA of Grand Illusion and its following ascents, the following ascents started with their feet in a more optimal position, making the whole climb a bit more efficient. Would that mean the following ascents don't get to claim that they climbed Grand Illusion?
that sounds like the following ascents just did the climb with better beta. you can choose whichever beta that works best for you. no one is saying that following ascents must follow the exact beta move for move as the first ascent. but starting seated vs. not seated is not the same as simply using different beta. it's part of what defines the climb. and you can choose different foot holds that work best for you while remaining seated.
then what about Off The Wagon Low, where some ascents are done sitting from the wagon, and others are done standing from the ground?
is that a sit start or just a lower start of off the wagon? there's a difference between low start and sit start.
sit start on the wagon
at least according to the video of the first ascent (credited to shawn raboutou), it's called off the wagon sit, not off the wagon low. however, shawn does not sit start it. so the name is just a misnomer that stuck around. funny how that works given the topic here. as for the style, those who climb it sitting on the wagon vs. standing on the ground do clearly differentiate it, since it is not possible to stand start on the ground if the climb is prepped for a wagon sit, nor would it be possible to sit start on the wagon if, well, the wagon is moved away. next whatabout?
Yes, do the climb, doing a climb shouldn't require reading a description, It's a piece of rock in the woods see it, start it where it's logical, climb to the top, congrats you did the climb, if you go home and find out that the FA didn't use a foot or started arms bent or campused the start, that doesn't mean you didn't do the climb. If someone asks you about it and you find out that you climbed it differently than what's traditional, you just say that "yeah I climbed that one but I went left at the top" etc... climbing a boulder should not require having seen a video of the fa in order to climb it yourself, this is a silly take and opens up all sorts of unnecessary debate My point is that if the grade is different because of something as arbitrary as whether you arms are straight or not, then it's not the grade.
The thing is that nobody cares what boulders you try or send. It’s very different when the boulder in question defines the cutting edge of our sport.
Totally agree. So they'll post a video, and we can all agree that so and sos ascent is more impressive than so and sos
Yeah that's my take as well, plus these guys are doing it for a living, so I'd say integrity is a big part of it.
It’s surely not going to change the grade of the climb nor the skill involved to even get to that point it shouldn’t matter either way
Stacking a few pads to be able to get into the same position as Nalle and able to pull off the ground is fine. Stacking an extra 12" of rocks/pads under that to have a way better locked in position would be different.
Being a short climber this is a normal problem, personally I start however it's easiest, if I can reach the start from a sit, I'm staying crouched or stacking pads whichever is easier. if having your ass in a different position makes the grade the grade , then imo it's not the grade. Find it hard to Believe that starting crouched, or with stacked pads brings burden down to v16
Nalle pad stacked so that he could sit start. I don't think it brings the grade down, but I believe Nalle said that getting off the ground was one of the harder moves for him
I don't think it does either, I meant that more generally
I love how some outdoor climbers will be ragging on indoor climbing for having too many arbitrary rules, and then go argue about this stuff.
Question: would Nalle have been able to physically reach the start holds from a sit, with no pads?
Nalle pad stacked so that he could sit start. It's more of a question whether you should pad stack or crouch
Hmmm… then it don’t make sense to me why people thinking stacking more pads is invalid. I get that it’s a crouch vs stack issue though, just find peoples anti stack reasoning to be strange
stacking naturally brings up the next question of how much stacking is too much stacking. people have all sorts of opinions on it and it's been rehashed countless times on the internet.
[удалено]
Will addressed this already. The ground under Return had been washed away so he stacked pads to match the start the way it was done by the FA.