Criticizing Style of Something You Haven't Done?

nicelegs wrote:I have made one of my rare mistakes. I used n00b, an age sensitive term. I meant to use gumby because as Tradster and so (SO) many other have shown, gumby can be for life.

OP, as I see it, there is actually a problem with the logic on this thread.

The questions is not just:

Do Chufftards have a right to their opinion, it is actually, should chufftards opinion be respected?

The answer is a resounding yes from the hordes of chufftards wanting to justify their existence, choices, and mediocre climbing ability.

The answer is no from the few people competent enough to comment on such technical issues.

Personally, I feel embarrassed just having an opinion, and yes, I have flashed 5.12+.

I think the opinion of the person with the most expensive/shiniest gear at the crag should take precedence.

Patrick,

No, you don’t. Taking offense to something is reactive energy, low vibration. By being offended one claims the right to act with a certain level of (passive?) aggression. It becomes justification for treating others poorly, being verbally or physically abusive, murder, destruction, inequality, censorship, limiting others rights and so on. The end result of individuals having the right to be offended is a loss of personal freedoms for everyone.

Perhaps it’s more accurate to say you don’t have the right to avoid being offended. Either way, anything that can be said can be offensive. It is up to the individual that feels offended to first question their own reactions. Where is this coming from? What are you trying to protect?

Wade J. wrote:It's just climbing, and it's just the internet. Most people don't really care that much. .

It would be nice if the test for informed criticism was just whether the criticizer has direct personal involvement with the subject, but this is beyond silly as soon as you start actually thinking of how it would apply. Do you have to be a murderer to object to murder? Do you have to be dead to find unfortunate aspects of death? Do you have to be a lawyer to criticize certain legal practices? There is no end to the counterexamples.

To take a climbing example, if you've never done a bunch of run-out routes, should you be able to criticize the lack of protection and argue for bolts that were not originally used? If you buy the "have to do it to criticize it" standard then surely not.

And what about the Dawn Wall (which I personally think is a fantastic achievement)? There are at most a handful of climbers in the world who could be said to truly understand what Tommy and Kevin were doing up there, quite possibly not a single one on this site. I'm not speaking of just the difficulty, which is a way to misunderstand what they were up to. There is the sophisticated aid climbing, the general big-wall living, and the intricate search for and resolution of free-climbing passages while trying as much as possible to minimize bolting. Is there to be no discussion of the Dawn Wall tactics and their implication except among the tiny number of people who genuinely understand all these aspects?

And, by the way, if lack of direct participatory experience disqualifies criticism, it must also disqualify praise, because if you can't justifiably reach negative conclusions, you also can't justifiably reach positive ones.

This is not to say that there isn't plenty of ignorant criticism, and there are also lots of examples to illustrate that direct involvement does not guarantee an intelligent perspective. In order to be something beyond mere trolling or mindless advocacy, criticism ought to come with well-thought out reasons, and, if appropriate, facts that can be checked. The result, ideally, is a public discussion that clarifies the issues. The clarification may or may not be what the criticizer advocated, and may in fact not arrive at any kind of consensus, but I at least think clarification is valuable and even essential.

Ladron de Engranajes wrote: Must you be able to climb the grade to criticize the style?

Jim Titt wrote: Restaurant critics aren´t cooks, theatre critics aren´t actors, wine critics don´t make wine.......

How does one not have the right to be offended? What kind of granola eating, tree hugging, "my parents never punished me because I would figure out my own boundaries" bullshit is that?
Its a natural reaction to be offended. Its not the being offended that's inappropriate, its how one reacts to being offended that may or may not be appropriate.

Dow Williams wrote: Bad example. All three are paid for their opinion. That means they have drank a hell of a lot of wine. More than your average consumer.

I met a young kid (maybe older than 18 but if so not by much) whose reaction to some total dork impressed the hell out of me.

This was at the gym no less but the kid is working some v5. The dork is working, and flailing, on an overhung jug haul v1. The dork is friendly but makes uncomfortable jokes like anthropomorphizing the wall and talking about it growing limbs and pushing people off. That's his humor, whatever, but the truly dorky part is when he starts spraying beta to the kid working the 5. It's a problem he admits he can't even touch, but he just starts going on and on with "what about this, what about that, how about..."

This is enough to piss most people off. But this kid does nothing but look him in the eye, hear him out, and tell him, "that could work, nice idea." The dork, swelling with pride, again iterates that he can't he even start but he was just thinking... The kid just tells him, "you'll get there."

Now I realize that the dork is really just being friendly and not being critical, which is what this thread is about, but spraying unsolicited beta on something you can't climb is pretty awful etiquette and in my opinion on par with the question posed by the OP. And just because this is the gym and not a real 5 doesn't change the moral. Besides, I see more egoic bs at the gym than I do outside, anyway.

The whole scene inspired me. I'm no setter but everyone runs into someone sometimes who's less experienced or skilled than he or she who shoots off the mouth inappropriately. I know who's behavior I can control, and I also know who's I want to emulate.

I couldn't find Rhode Island on a map of the US, but they do have two great US Senators, Reed and Whitehouse.

I couldn't find Rhode Island on a map of the US, but they do have two great US Senators, Reed and Whitehouse.

Passive Aggression wrote:Patrick, No, you don’t. Taking offense to something is reactive energy, low vibration. By being offended one claims the right to act with a certain level of (passive?) aggression. It becomes justification for treating others poorly, being verbally or physically abusive, murder, destruction, inequality, censorship, limiting others rights and so on. The end result of individuals having the right to be offended is a loss of personal freedoms for everyone.