Tick Marks - Good or Bad?

Andrew Ryder wrote:Use ticks if you want (I often use them on granite and dacite problems where footholds are hard to see, especially since my eyesight isn't great), just use a good brush and a bit of water to get rid of them when you're done so others can have the experience of working out the beta or onsighting. Simple as that.

interesting. so would it be a legitimate onsight if you walk up and send a problem with all the good holds ticked for you? would this be considered a flash?

jarthur wrote: It's like my friend Dean Melton once said, "The only way to save the Earth is to just shoot yourself."

I wouldn't consider your friend's response a very intelligent solution to the issue. That's simply a cop out for simply not wanting to acknowledge the issue.

Adam Winters wrote: interesting. so would it be a legitimate onsight if you walk up and send a problem with all the good holds ticked for you? would this be considered a flash?

I have more than once been cruxing out high on a problem, only to see a tick mark above marking a hold that I would not otherwise have seen. Grabbing this hold allows me to complete the problem. Had the tick not been there, I would have fallen.

Hence, it is not an onsight. It is a flash.

$.02

Edited to add: Like Andrew said! Use em if you want, just brush em off! They're ugly and they ruin the experience for others.

Elijah Flenner wrote: The Gill arrows are not tick marks. They do not mark holds, but are an arrow which shows people where the problems are. They are an interesting piece of history. Note that in Fontainebleau many circuits are marked with paint and dots, but these are also not tick marks.

Uh huh, the point of this whole post is to minimize impact on different climbing areas. The fact that we as climbers feel that "Gill Arrows" are an interesting piece of history (believe me I did the first time I saw them at Horsetooth) is not the same as when the park service found Native American markings at Hueco. I highly doubt the park service is going to find "Gill Arrows" an interesting piece of history the same way we climbers do.

Not a tick mark? If by definition you feel that a tick mark is a temporary line of chalk marking the direction a problem as opposed to a permanent arrow drawn in the rock that's still there after 40 years marking the direction of a problem really confuses me. It's one and the same.

jarthur wrote: Uh huh, the point of this whole post is to minimize impact on different climbing areas. The fact that we as climbers feel that "Gill Arrows" are an interesting piece of history (believe me I did the first time I saw them at Horsetooth) is not the same as when the park service found Native American markings at Hueco. I highly doubt the park service is going to find "Gill Arrows" an interesting piece of history the same way we climbers do. Not a tick mark? If by definition you feel that a tick mark is a temporary line of chalk marking the direction a problem as opposed to a permanent arrow drawn in the rock that's still there after 40 years marking the direction of a problem really confuses me. It's one and the same.

I agree. the argument about tick marks will go on forever, though i really don't know why... they are gross indications that we have been there and have marked our presence. but realistically it IS about minimizing our impact on these natural wonders. call me a tree-hugger, but human impact IS ugly- tick marks being near the top of the list... i find it almost humorous how easy it is to pick out the excessive tickers in this group- anyone that condones them or defends them for any reason is guilty of excessive ticking, and should settle down with them. it's ridiculous to claim you're against them, but at the same time have accepted the fact that they aren't going anywhere, "it's the nature of bouldering and sport climbing" are you kidding me?!?!- AGAIN, lazy-ass humans- it's sick. don't fuking argue this- there's no good reason to defend left-over tick marks unless you have defaced boulders and holds yourself... bring on the hate-posts, but there's no good reason to leave your bullshit tick marks on beautiful boulders. it's litter and it IS ugly. and if you don't know why, then you don't deserve to be climbing on real boulders- this shit is for the gym. don't get me wrong- i enjoy the gym as much as the next guy, but keep your shit indoors. damnit i can't believe this is even an issue...

Adam Winters wrote: I agree. the argument about tick marks will go on forever, though i really don't know why... they are gross indications that we have been there and have marked our presence. but realistically it IS about minimizing our impact on these natural wonders. call me a tree-hugger, but human impact IS ugly- tick marks being near the top of the list... i find it almost humorous how easy it is to pick out the excessive tickers in this group- anyone that condones them or defends them for any reason is guilty of excessive ticking, and should settle down with them. it's ridiculous to claim you're against them, but at the same time have accepted the fact that they aren't going anywhere, "it's the nature of bouldering and sport climbing" are you kidding me?!?!- AGAIN, lazy-ass humans- it's sick. don't fuking argue this- there's no good reason to defend left-over tick marks unless you have defaced boulders and holds yourself... bring on the hate-posts, but there's no good reason to leave your bullshit tick marks on beautiful boulders. it's litter and it IS ugly. and if you don't know why, then you don't deserve to be climbing on real boulders- this shit is for the gym. don't get me wrong- i enjoy the gym as much as the next guy, but keep your shit indoors. damnit i can't believe this is even an issue...

I'm assuming you think I'm an excessive ticker without even ever climbing with me. Anyone that has climbed with me has never seen me place a tickmark on a boulder (I'm either sneaky, or I've made sure I've cleaned them off). Good job on Goldfish Trombone, but I do find it interesting that on all of the pictures of you on that problem there are clearly marked tickmarks on the holds. Although I won't make the mistake to call you the excessive ticker, or even the one that ticked the holds in the first place. I'll just not make an assumption either way.

jarthur wrote: Uh huh, the point of this whole post is to minimize impact on different climbing areas. The fact that we as climbers feel that "Gill Arrows" are an interesting piece of history (believe me I did the first time I saw them at Horsetooth) is not the same as when the park service found Native American markings at Hueco. I highly doubt the park service is going to find "Gill Arrows" an interesting piece of history the same way we climbers do. Not a tick mark? If by definition you feel that a tick mark is a temporary line of chalk marking the direction a problem as opposed to a permanent arrow drawn in the rock that's still there after 40 years marking the direction of a problem really confuses me. It's one and the same.

I don't think there has been any fallout over the Gill arrows by the park service. Note that while it has not become popular to mark routes and boulder problems with paint in the United States, this is frequently done in areas in other countries. I am not condoning this practice, but just pointing out that it exists and is accepted by land managers elsewhere.

I see a tick mark as any sort of mark that is intentionally placed to mark specific hand and foot holds. In this sense, the Gill arrows are not tick marks, since they just mark the location of a problem and the general direction. They are also small and hard to see, thus I do not see them as an eyesore, and, therefore, should not be compared to the large and excessive ticks seen on some boulder problems.

Tick marks are obnoxious. If I see anyone tick-marking the beautiful maroon stone, I'll stab them... in the face.

Helldorado wrote:Tick marks are obnoxious. If I see anyone tick-marking the beautiful maroon stone, I'll stab them... in the face.

Ancient thread troll dab. What's with the thread resurrection thing going on around here?

Tick marks are ridiculously ugly, especially on dark maroon sandstone. If you can't climb a beautiful boulder without turning it into a shithole, then you shouldn't be climbing at all. Ticks are rarely ever needed, and even after you brush them off, you can still tell that the chalk has worked it's way into the pores of the rock.

On the Gill arrows; John never thought that bouldering would become so popular in the future, so he did not see the arrows as something that people would emulate, though he does acknowledge that they are not appropriate in this day and age.

Get a life.

Everyone getting all pissy over tick marks need to change their tampons... seriously. You're bitching about tick marks when then rest of the damn boulder is covered in chalk. You have no right bitching about tick marks if you use chalk to climb... period... I use ticks yes. Small little ticks just to point me in the right direction towards a blind throw. In cases I've seen large obnoxious tick marks... IE. Cave Direct in Castlewood every time I go there. That is ridiculous I agree, but When I'm done I clean mine off. When I'm done at a spot that has ticks there already I clean them off when I leave. A light brushing of a soft brush with a smidgen of water and tick is gone. A couple seconds of elbow grease and abracadabra... fucking magic. Instead of bitching about it, clean it...