For the unfamiliar: Anytime you are getting belayed with a rope, you are not bouldering. All but the very top picture are considered "top-roping". Bouldering problems are much shorter (generally under 20ft) and require you to exert a shorter, but greater amount of effort when compared to roped-climbs of a similar grade of difficulty. It's similar to comparing a sprint and marathon.
Hey at least the videos are there - be sure to check it out. I've seen it before so I've realized what the description was about which made it a lot more interesting
Adam Ondra skipped the 360 by starting with arms crossed, somewhere around 2:28:??. I don't think he was the only one doing that, just the one I remember. These contests show amazing ingenuity by both the setters and the climbers.
Bouldering should be in the Olympics in 2020. As an occasional boulderer happy with the sport's current reach and feel, I'm not sure how I feel about that... it'll sure be fun to watch though.
Climbing has been shortlisted among other sports that might get added, and the proposition includes lead, speed and bouldering. Whether it will really happen is doubtful (final decision will be announced in August 2016).
I think it would be great, but I should hope that the traditionally festive ambiance of climbing competitions will not get tainted by the ridiculously serious Olympics mindset.
When did the setter worship start? The gym I go to, Brooklyn boulders in somerville ma, has pictures of the setters and little bios hanging on the walls... for sure it is a creative process but give someone a bucket of holds and an hour and you'll have something that is fun. A gym I used to go to used to let pretty much anyone set, just had to ask.
I think this explains the rating "deflation" where there aren't really any V0s because there is so much pressure to be known as a "hard" setter? Or possibly the dedicated setters are so experienced they don't remember what a V0 actually is? Either way I've found it to be an issue when trying to introduce climbing to novices.
Hm, odd that you mention V0 as an example of deflation because at most gyms I've been to V0 is an example of grade /inflation/.
In the Hueco V-scale, V0 is supposed to be equivalent to 5.10 in the Yosemite Decimal System. But not a single gym I've been to sets V0s that are as hard as 5.10. Some gyms introduce a "VB" grade for beginners but their V0 is typically not as hard as the 5.10 they set on ropes.
I've always chalked this up (heh) to a need to make an enjoyable "first climb" experience for new climbers (who are typically messing around on boulders to see if they like it before learning to belay). If you start bouldering and can't even do the easiest problem in the gym then it's unlikely you're going to have fun and come back.
Unfortunately this leads to disappointing (and in some cases, dangerous!) first outdoor experiences since you try out a V3 and get absolutely shut down because your gym's whole rating system is biased by 1-3 grades.
I've experienced what both of you are saying. Some gyms I go to have exclusively hard stuff that is accurately related in relation to outdoors, and then others have had crazy inflated rates. I find mainly lead routes inflated though. I don't think any 12a 5.12a I've lead inside was really a 12a.
I've climbed on well set routes and poorly set routes. At higher grades, good setting makes all the difference between an enjoyable, hard challenge and something I never want to try again.
I like the recent trend at most gyms to let members rate routes on a 5-star scale. You start to recognize good setters and climb their routes first. I wouldn't call it "setter worship", but good setting is something I can appreciate.
I really like the rating idea, any idea if people just rate the setters they like really well? I go to a smallish gym and all the regulars know all the setters so this probably wouldn't work for us.
I live in Boulder, so there's no such thing as a small climbing gym here. As far as I can tell, people rate the routes. IMHO, the ratings end up being really accurate, one gym (Movement) even uses three significant digits.
I think the importance of the setter isn't as interesting until V3/V4 and above. V0 is a ladder with a couple missing rungs, no one's forgetting how to set those. I also don't think there's pressure to be a "hard" setter, it's just very challenging to set really interesting routes in harder grades that are accomplishable and don't have loopholes/workarounds. If anything the pressure is to be really creative and challenging at any grade (realistically above V2 or so).
my climbing partner and I pay attention to the route setters. we have a couple favorites in the gym and a couple we don't particularly enjoy.
our favorites are chosen mostly because their grades feel right, and their climbs are fun. I see two problems that setters fall into: 1) make it super hard technically/hard to figure out, or 2) really easy technically, but you have to be the Hulk to get past it. someone that can balance those issues makes a good setter.
Something that really distinguishes bouldering gyms, for me, is the quality of the route setting.
I've been in gyms in which there are routes that are interesting and challenging at all levels. There are several variables the route setter can manipulate:
* Various strength areas (fingers/wrist, upper arms/upper back, core, legs)
I usually climb ~V5 routes, but a well set V2 that properly exercises all of these different areas can still be fun to goof around on.
On the other hand, I've also climbed in gyms in which the routes are set almost solely on the strength variables. Separating a V3 and a V6 are only bigger, stronger moves. This makes for pretty dull climbing (in my opinion).
"But the setters are the wizards who really run the show. They are to a climbing wall what coders are to a video game, the geeks who keep you up all night obsessing over that winning sequence"
This analogy with coders is pretty sweet. I really miss indoor climbing and bouldering, such fantastic mental exercises (which ironically relax you quite a bit even though your whole body aches) after a long day of work in front of a computer.
Mental exercise really is the right way to describe it. When I started bouldering, I always assumed it was purely about strength. But knowing the right way to approach a route, and how to position your weight, can be the difference between finishing easily or getting exhausted after a few holds.
Yeah I'd also be surprised if many programmers weren't climbers as well. Those two activities are basically my favorite two things to do, and I believe they complement each other very well. Much like programming, it gets harder the better you get at it.
Climbing seems (outsider here) to provide a good combination of technical and physical challenges. I've been getting back into martial arts (BJJ and, now, wrestling, hopefully boxing soon) and have found the same thing there. Ballroom dance, again, provides a nice combination of physical and technical challenges.
I think that's what appeals to programmers (and similarly technically inclined folks) about these hobbies and sports. You learn some basics, you develop the skill and strength to perform them, and then you start applying the knowledge in new and more creative ways to solve the problems you face on the boulder, in the ring or on the dance floor.
The MMA gym I attend for BJJ. The owner was a wrestler in HS and college. There are a bunch of students (younger men than me) who have some background in wrestling (HS, college or both, some still in that) so he started a couple wrestling sessions a week for them. Also, some of the MMA guys wanted to learn a bit of wrestling to add to their skill set if they didn't have it already.
EDIT: Random plug, though this probably won't apply to anyone here: Rush MMA in downtown Macon, GA.
in SF and silicon valley, its functionally the millennial generation's golf-equivalent networking sport. An interesting observation is that very few of these climbers ever end up climbing outdoors.
I can see that. I'm on the east coast so I don't have that exposure, but I've seen the demographic of gym climbers change over time. It's a shame though, because outdoor climbing is why I love it. It's more challenging, you are often camping in nature, and it takes you to beautiful scenery almost always.
When I was at Waterloo almost everyone I knew at the climbing gym was some combination of engineering, physics, mathematics, and computer science.
This doesn't surprise me since bouldering problems, as discussed here, are puzzles, akin to programming puzzles, where the solution is often some clever trick that, once known, makes a problem easy.
After a lifetime of failed attempts at “getting in shape” or finding some sort of exercise regiment that I could stick to, bouldering finally worked — because it’s not boring.
What I love about bouldering is it is very easy to mark progress. You can get higher on the wall or do a move. Very motivating. You can see it. I find that in the gym, progress is measured by moving the rod one weight down or adding another plate on the bar. Not a very visual thing.
At one point a few years ago when Max was setting routes in Boston, he was free-soloing a 14d at Rumney (one of the harder climbs in the world, without a rope, probably 40-50' tall), and fell on the last move of the climb. He broke both his legs but survived, and later went on to make it through to the finals of a bouldering competition with boots on both legs.
Unbelievable natural talent - I've seen him out at Dogpatch in SF easily climbing v11's.
They got it right actually, supernova is only about 30ft, super short lead route, shorter than a lot of highball boulders out there. Which explains why he tried to solo it. I don't think many people are trying to solo long single pitch sport routes that hard.
Just for the record, Max, is a beast of a climber. When I moved to the East Bay, he finished one of the hardest outdoor climbs right in front of me one afternoon in Berkeley. Incredibly strong & gifted climber (and route-setter, apparently!)
There are some good videos[1] going through the mindset of setters as they set problems that I feel explains the concept super well.
Also, another crossover between technology and climbing that has been doing the rounds recently is this really interesting gamification of bouldering[2]. The guy uses a projector to put spots on a bouldering wall that the players have to hit. Fastest time wins.
The one annoying thing to me about route setting is there's seemingly no science to it (or at least I didn't get that from the article). I may climb a V5 at one gym, but not be able to crack a V3 at another. It would be nice to know if i'm really progressing or if Router Setter Bob just keeps labeling a V3 as a V5.
Make special climbing holds with RFID scanners in them. These are your starting holds and your finishing holds.
Sell wristbands or something with RFID tags in them. RFID tag is coded to a climber. Upon starting a route, the start hold scans your chip, and upon finishing (if you finish) it gets scanned.
Now you can use an Elo rating algorithm (think chess ratings, or various video games use it now, too) to rate both routes and climbers in a statistically objective way. If there is any intermixing of climbers among gyms who both have this system, you get cross-gym normalization for free.
Finishing a route counts as the climber "defeating" the route. Likewise, failing a route counts as a route "defeating" the climber. This suffices to create a rating, even though the matchmaking graph is bipartite (e.g. there is no way to have two climbers play each other or two routes play each other).
* A lot of people don't carry their phone around with them in the gym.
* Added friction. My favorite thing about bouldering (as opposed to top roping or something) is that I can just hop on and off the wall without any setup.
* Doesn't measure failures (unless people manually input them, which is adding friction on top of the annoyance of not finishing the route).
Many gyms already have QR codes on their routes and several climbing sites accept them as part of entering your routes and discussing them. But if you want to build a custom piece of hardware and manufacture it, convince people and gyms to buy it and maintain it and then convince an existing site or service to support it, good luck to ya
Most gyms have other setters agree on ratings. So it's not just Bob's opinion that matters, its multiple of the gyms setters opinions too. If Bob keeps setting problems that he says are v5 and are actually v3, the other setters will say so and the gym will take the groups agreed upon rating (at least thats how my gyms have done it). Sometimes the group can be wrong though, or the beta is super difficult and no one gets it so the climb feels grades above what was intended.
Great discussion on bouldering from history to the technical aspects of the holds. The piece isn't for everyone but anyone that wants to know more about climbing in general it gives a great overview of the terminology used and gives you a perspective from seasoned climbers and route setters.
Since this seams like the right crowd / article, are Climbing Wall Treadmills worth the money and do they allow for setting the holds? Asking for a community college environment.
Yes, they allow setting holds. Can't say if they are worth the money though. I've climbed on a demo and didn't particularly enjoy it. It's better suited for people working on endurance (you can climb vertically for hours) instead of technical ability.
I cannot express how much I hate these posts. I read the headline and I'm getting all curious and want to know the answer. But hell no: "The route setter studied the blank gray surface." and I already know the ⅘ of the text will be pouring water, like telling me it was "a Tuesday in early June" and what climbing holds were being made of in 1985 or something. So I'm left with the choice: read it all or give it up after I'm already intrigued. Are these journalists being paid by word or they're just honestly thinking they are Scott goddamn Fitzgerald?
Worse than that, this particular post doesn't even quite answer the question. Turns out it's pretty much of an art without any rules.
Yeah, at least with The New Yorker I know what I'm getting myself into. And the authors there are mostly well-established and familiar enough that I can trust there to be some insight buried within the human interest asides. But with pieces like this I can't take that risk.
anecdotally, one of my older relatives who is into climbing said he knew a mathematician/climber who was pretty good at analysing various possible routes and planning a good route while climbing.
so, maybe we can proceed by not reading the article and theorising in a vaccuum.
maybe one way to formalise this is some kind of (adversarial?) game, where one player designs the course, and the other player tries to find a good route through the course, where we quantify "good" somehow.
As a non-professional route setter I disagree - it's actually a very interesting activity that is part science and part art. It involves a lot of contemplation in the area of physics, body mechanics, and psychology. Additionally it's a lot like game design in that the problem you create will be interacted with extensive, obsessively and can result in significant challenge, reward and frustration by the user.
But I'll admit I didn't read the article, because big media almost always does a terrible job at covering climbing... let alone a niche of climbing that has taken years of practice to understand and appreciate.
