Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
What makes a "Classic" boulder problem?
|
Piggybacking off of the recent topic of most classic boulder problem by grade, what makes them a classic? I know this is very subjective but what are your thoughts? The consensus seems to think that traverses are a no go. Is it height then? Say 15ft+, and is it because it adds more moves or provides that adrenaline factor? Is good rock quality a must? What if it's on a soft sandstone that may erode, break, or change over time, does this mean it's no longer a classic? Or is it just an ever changing classic? Who knows, maybe it gets better over time... What about straightforwardness? Say there are multiple possible start holds or multiple exits, does this take the problem away from classic status for you? Does the problem have to be in a high traffic area to be a classic? There may be problems that are just as good if not better in Podunk, Kentucky but if only one or two people have ever climbed them and they're not well known, can it still be considered classic? What about consistency of the climb? Say a V8 has one V8 move and the rest of the climb is relatively easier. Does this matter? Or do you like your climb to be pretty consistent, say V6-V8 moves throughout the climb? Or maybe it's problems with unique movement? Or problems that make you scratch your head and think a little? (Assuming you don't watch beta videos). So what's on your list that helps it reach that classic status? |
|
Classics that are climbed infrequently are still classics. My criteria for a classic would include quality/variety/uniqueness of movement, aesthetics (shape of bloc, how obvious the line is, setting), how skin friendly it is, height (a high crux is more airy and memorable).
|
|
For most climbers its soft for the grade and close to the car |
Mark Vigil wrote: There’s definitely some truth to this. |
|
The FA never gets to bestow "classic" on her own problems, only others'. |
|
A classic problem should:
A classic problem is never:
Bonus points if:
|
|
I think that a classic climb will have some or all of the following characteristics:
There are also threshold characteristics like the quality of the landing, and the integrity of the rock. These aspects are important but only because if its bad enough they will detract from the experience, where as the listed characteristics add to the experience. Also for the record I think that Iron Man traverse is 100% as classic as they come and I am prepared to die on that hill. |
|
When it makes yer weewee wiggle |
Woolly Mammut wrote: Classics are based on climber opinions. |
Will C wrote: Eh, I used chatGPT for that one |
|
A classic draws you in, again and again. It could be fun movement, not sharp. It could also be satisfying, maybe tall but doable. There are so many classics, and so many different types of classics. Also, I'm in the Ironman is classic camp. You can grab every hold from the ground, there are no tricks, and it's still hard. I'd put it in the satisfying category. Everyone tries it, most struggle more than they'd like to admit. Just stand there at the first hold and look right at the rail, slowly, geometrically, getting smaller to the end. Classic. |
|
-Bullet rock, not greasy from hundreds of people touching it but glassy is fine. Not chunky rock like flagstaff... Can be sharp but not tooooo sharp. -Fairly tall, 15-25 feet of climbing, low angle slabs on top don't play into the height as much -Difficulty is fairly consistent. There isn't a wild fluctuation in move difficulty (e.g. a V2 into a single V10 move is lame). Or if its a steady ramping in difficulty thats pretty cool too. -Aesthetically pleasing, for example Sunseeker on Mt. Evans for an eye catching line, and Multiverse in Wyoming for eye catching rock colors. -Pure line, little to no contrivance. Fairly obvious start and finish -Good location, not roadside and preferably no road noise, not in a mess of boulder caves (looking at you lincoln lake), stands out among the scenery. Also not that close to a popular trail, not sure why we care about impressing passerby lol. The more serene the setting the better! -Good landing. The flatter the better. What doesn't make the list -Movement is subjective to everyone so that shouldn't play into it too much. Some people really like crimp ladders... -"historical" significance. a climbs popularity shouldn't matter. -traverses, rising travs are cool though -dabby climbs -the climb in question is "still cleaning up". What a bullshit statement, thoroughly clean your fucking FAs before climbing them y'all |
T D wrote: I like this the best so far. Originally read it as "daddy climbs" and I was thinking what the hell is that? |
T D wrote: Great list. Also to add to what does not / should not make the list: How it is graded (stout/soft). Mentioning this because someone above said it should be a factor ( I disagree). A great problem is a great problem regardless of which number some silly climbers decide to attach to it. A few other considerations: Generally agree that movement is a subjective factor, and everyone has their own preferences. However, some problems get bonus points for a unique and standout move/sequence. It's hard to totally remove movement from consideration, but it should play in too much. Height is another tricky one. A lot of these lists tend toward tall problems. Some height is good, but there is a point at which the problem is too tall. And I'd argue that height is a subjective matter, and different people have different preferences for their ideal height range. You might like 15-25 ft, but to me anything above 18' (not counting easy topout terrain) is a detractor. Taller isn't inherently better - just because some boulderers enjoy tall/risky problems doesn't make those problems objectively better. Just like some people enjoy dynos, but not all classics need to have dynos. A problem having a proud line is the important part, and height is a contributor to a proud line. But there are problems that manage to have a proud and aesthetic line (and a consistent/sustained sequence) while only being 12-15 feet tall at the lip. To me that's actually pretty awesome - you get the proud line, but with needing a truckload of pads and a risk to your ankles. |
|
Just to stir the pot a little more, I want to point out that Iron man traverse is not much of a traverse and it does in fact share the same characteristics as any other non traverse route. I.E. you start at an obvious spot at the bottom of the boulder and you continue along an obvious line of holds until you are on top of the boulder. As far as this thread is concerned the only "classic" attribute discussed that Iron Man doesn't have is height (which I agree with JCM is a dumb requirement). |
Will C wrote: I really deeply disagree with this. You are taking a personal preference (playing with risk), and suggesting it is objectively better. If more risk is inherently good, shouldn't a worse landing make the climb more classic? But we have "good landing" as a criteria for a classic. The logic is inconsistent. To me, the best climbs are those that give the benefits you are looking for (a proud line, consistent/sustained challenge, a satisfying experience), without having to incur significant risk to get there. But that's my subjective preference. Risk is not inherently good or bad on climbs; much like difficult or type of movement it is subject to personal preference. And a willingness to take risk is a silly measure of quality also. Lots of people risk their necks on crappy climbs (case study: Eldo). In many cases they do it not because the climb itself if amazing, but because they find the risk itself to be an interesting thing. Or they seek the social validation that comes with the way the climbing community treats risk. As a bit of a tangent, IMO the way the climbing community thinks about risk is a pretty messed up historical artifact that leads to a lot of bad outcomes. We glorify the bad decisions of what are generally reckless young people without the maturity to understand what they are potentially giving up. More mature people in the sport should be offering a more complete understanding of potential consequences, not romanticizing the bad decisions in their past that they barely got away with. [This might be the moment I realized I have turned into the old guy. Shit.] === Nonetheless, I do agree that classic climbs often are on the taller side. Height lends itself to classics because it is correlated with length, visual appeal, lack of dab-factor, etc. These add objective quality. The risk piece though, I don't think adds objective quality. Risk is another dimension; an axis orthogonal to difficulty and quality. Case study on risk: If Atari (Happy Boulders) had a perfectly safe flat landing but was otherwise the same, would it be a better or worse problem? To me, I'd say better climb (less risk for the same line). You might say worse (to you the risk is part of the appeal). This indicates it is subjective -- and therefore inherently not a universal or objective measure of quality |
Andrew Child wrote: No more Iron Man Traverse, haha. It is absolutely a traverse. I almost wish the FA would have just started 3/4 in. The reason it's so popular is that every beginning outdoor climber can do the opening moves and feels that they have a chance at sending their first outdoor 4. Also with very low risk of injury, especially with all the pads that are thrown down on that thing. It doesn't have height and it also doesn't have consistency which is a big one for me. I will say that it is a nice non-contrived line that is aesthetically pleasing, I'm still on the fence about classic though. As for Box Therapy, Dream Catcher and Alphane, I haven't climbed those so can't really comment on their classicness but I would say probably not even in the same boulder field. Risk is very subjective and to some may add to the classic stature of a particular boulder problem. I would say that it's not a hard must have. Calculated risk is the best risk. Continue to push your limits but be smart enough to know when to back off. |
Will C wrote: You literally used the words "universality" and "inherently adds worth or value" in the earlier post I was responding to. I'm not necessarily saying risk is a bad thing (though we should change how we talk about it), just that its value isn't universal or inherent. It sounds like you agree with me then, based on this backtracking.
This is legit and I agree. Rising to a challenge and overcoming it is worth something. Risk is a form of challenge. So is physical difficulty. So are complicated logistics. A hard, risky climb in a logistically complicated location is more impressive ascent than a safe, easy, accessible climb. But that is a statement about the ascent, not the quality of the climb itself. You can have an impressive ascent on a zero-star climb. This thread is about what makes great climbs, not impressive ascents. Risk and difficulty make an ascent impressive, but don't change any inherent or universal aspect of the climbs quality. Risk, difficulty, and quality are orthogonal axes when describing a climb. Are hard climbs inherently better than easy climbs? The ascent may mean more to you on a hard climb, but that doesn't change the quality of the climb itself. Risk is the same way.
Pretty much all those examples exist on a spectrum, from well managed risk to foolish recklessness. You have to take some risk to go out into the world, but more risk does not inherently equal more reward. The smart skier or investor or cosmonaut is the person who can get the reward while minimizing risk. Contrasting to climbing culture, skiing (backcountry skiing, specifically), is actually a sport with a more mature culture of talking about risk, and not overly glorifying foolish behavior. Skiing in bad avy conditions is not seem as inherently better than skiing the line a month later on stable snow (the opposite, actually) - the risk does not add value. I'm not saying that climbers shouldn't take risks, but that we need to develop more maturity in how we talk about the risk, and not glorify the risk itself. |
Todd Berlier wrote: I get your "why" on this. It's still a ridiculous "why" and completely invalid. Region-to-region proximity should not be a factor. Heavenly Path would be Heavenly Path whether it's in Tuolumne, the valley, Mammoth, the tablelands, or Buttermilks. |
|
This thread is bouncing between 3 different things: 1. What makes an "objectively" good boulder (if such a definition is even possible). 2. What you personally like in a boulder, based on personal subjective preferences. 3. What makes a "classic" boulder. On point 3, oftentimes "good" and "classic" are used interchangeably, but I'd disagree with that. A classic tends to have a certain fame, reputation, and sought-after-ness. Classics generally need to be good quality also, but quality alone isn't enough. You can have better boulders that aren't as "classic" because they lack the history or fame. For instance, Midnight Lighting is certainly the most classic boulder in Yosemite, but in raw quality it's not even the best V8 in Camp 4. So are we talking about classics, or about great boulders? There two concepts are adjacent, but not identical. |
Todd Berlier wrote: I've always preferred the Tablelands to the Milks, but I acknowledge that is a sign of perversion and moral weakness. |
