Talk:Bouldering/Archive 1

Archive 1

Photo

I have just changed the photo since the previous one does not show the details of a person bouldering. More details can be seen, i.e. shoes, crash pads, taped fingers, and chalky hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsriprac (talk • contribs)

• Congratulations, excellent picture! Rwxrwxrwx 08:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the first picture back because the article is long enough for two pictures :: maelgwn :: talk 09:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Just a question. I had previously inserted the following photograph into the 'Bouldering' article and it was deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rockclimbing.JPG

I can understand why it was replaced as the main image, since the other photograph is a better example of bouldering, but surely this one has its merits. The person in the photo is most certainly bouldering (he is only about 3 metres above the ground, despite the trick photography that suggests otherwise).
What does everybody else think? Is there a place for this photograph further down in the article? Because what he is doing is certainly not rockclimbing! Ackatsis 06:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the editor who removed the image. I removed it because the photo gives no sense of bouldering as the angle from which it is taken looks as if he is free soloing a mammoth cliff! I'd suggest that this image is not clear enough in the context of bouldering to merit a place in the article as it could well confuse people who read the article and then see a photo that looks as if it is taken at a great height. That's my 2 cents - it's still a cool photo, just don't think it helps this article. Martin Hinks 10:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That picture of a person "bouldering" at Hanging Rock does not depict the sport of bouldering; the "climber" is wearing street shoes and apparently no chalk-bag, and not engaging in what would be regarded as bouldering moves. The Saint-Just photo (featuring bouldering moves, climbing shoes, and crash-mat) is an accurate representation of the sport (though if it featured a spotter and visible chalk-bag it would be better). The Hanging Rock picture is pleasant but it doesn't belong here; I think it should be removed. Rwxrwxrwx 12:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

agreed....maybe if we could show a picture of a climber canvassing up a small boulder with the crash pad in view, and wearing a chalk bag, that would be better. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, Image:Rockclimbing.JPG does show a boudering climber. I put the St Just picture. I am sorry about the chalk bag, but neither my son (on the picture) nor me use chalk when we climb. That is why you cannot see it. Romary 13:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ropes?

We appear to have conflicting statements, the first line of the article: "Bouldering is a type of rock climbing undertaken without a rope..." and then we have a Gear->Ropes section saying that ropes used to be used occasionally. I was under the impression that once you put on a harness and tie into a rope, you are no longer bouldering, you are top-roping, as the risk of falling is part of the sport. I don't know that much about the history of the sport though, so I thought it would be best to see what everyone else thinks. - Robogymnast 03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bouldering does require top-ropes to practice really high-ball problems such as the Peabodies in Buttermilks, Bishop, CA. It is still a part of bouldering equipment since it is used to preview/practice dangerously high bouldering problems. Rsriprac 01:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Horse Pens 40 bouldering image

A climber bouldering at Horse Pens 40 in Steele, Alabama.

I'm not really a fan of this image in the article. It doesn't really contribute anything - the climber's face is obscured (which, whilst not immediately damning to the photo's usefulness, just looks amateurish to me) and the climber (to my completely inexperience eye, at least) doesn't appear to have any of the normal bouldering equipment. It just looks as if somebody climbed two metres up a cliff-face, took a photo and tried to pass it off as bouldering. Of course, these are just my humble impressions, and I really don't know much about the sport at hand, so I decided to check if I'm in the minority on this before I considered removing the photo. The French photo (showing the crash pad) is a much better indication of bouldering, I think.
Any thoughts? Ackatsis 09:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• You're right, he's not even wearing climbing shoes! Rwxrwxrwx 14:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • OK. Due to a... er, overwhelming show of support, I'm now going to remove the suspect image. If anybody still has any problems, take it up with me here. Cheers! Ackatsis 12:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• I took the picture and I really don't care if you take it down. That said, here is my justification for putting it there:

That particular location, Horse Pens 40, is renowned as the bouldering capitol of the south. Also, having a "crash pad" is kind defeating the purpose, don't you think? Why climb with no ropes if you still have a pillow to fall back on? Also, those are climbing shoes, or, at the very least, they aren't impeding his ability to climb. And, no that's not me on the rock. So, there it is. The picture still lives over at the Horse Pens 40 article.24.181.107.29 08:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The shoes are clearly not climbing shoes and he would be able to climb better without them. A crash pad is standard bouldering equipment and so it is useful to demonstrate this in an article. He has his underwear showing - this is reason enough for me to remove the photo. :: maelgwntalk 08:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

People tend to get quite attached to their photos, but Wikipedia is not Flickr. Bouldering is a specialised sport which uses special equipment and techniques. Allowing that one to stay would be a bit like having the article about racewalking illustrated by a picture of a little old lady shuffling down the road with her shopping bag. Rwxrwxrwx 09:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea you were such a pilgrim, maelgwntalk. Again, I do not give a shit if you take the picture down. All I'm saying is that a crash pad is kinda puss.--66.32.105.180 00:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Its obvious you are clueless about climbing and your objective is just to get your crappy photos onto Wikipedia so you can spam-link to your crappy blog. Thats definitely puss. Rsriprac 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As a person who climbs v7, I can accurately say that nearly noone anywhere would climb as hard as I do today if it weren't for crashpads and shoes. You'd have broken ankles before you ever got remotely close to good enough. So this 'puss' argument is ridiculous. The speedwalking analogy is appropriate but insufficiently extreme... it would be like a sprinter running barefoot on concrete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.88.205 (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just historical context here - Jim Holloway was climbing V13 in the late 70s long before the first crashpad ever showed up. Sherman was sending double digit problems in Hueco with only a carpet square. —Preceding unsigned

Editing the text

I dont want to step on anyones toes but I do think that much of this article could be rewritten to make it clearer and really express the subtleties of bouldering. Im fairly new to wiki but I do understand the principle of discussing things before changing them. In this case however, I think it would be too messy and confusing to display all of the small edits, so I am just going to make them. Im happy to discuss any of them. Gripnik 20:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, this article could do with some work for sure. If you have any good references (WP:CITE) that would be the best improvemnet. Discussion is generally only needed when their is conflict or potential for conflict. :: maelgwn - talk 06:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Places to boulder stub

I've just added a climbing-stub template to the Places to boulder section in the hopes that it will draw attention to it, allowing climbers to add their knowledge to the collective. I would myself, but my knowledge of bouldering spots is very limited geographically (Val-David, Quebec and Gatineau, Quebec), the latter location is especially limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msanford (talk • contribs) 02:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is vandalized

I'm new to Wikipedia, but the following look like vandalized text:

"Some have argued that the rout of the name stems from that fact that those climbers who are predominantly or exclusively involved in bouldering have serious "problems" or mental instability or even mental impairment."

"A lack of self respect, or sense of decorum"

"Dyno (n.)

   Any of various extinct, often gigantic, carnivorous or herbivorous reptiles of the orders Saurischia and Ornithischia that were chiefly terrestrial and existed during the Mesozoic Era. "

"Flash (v.)

   Emitting light in sudden short or intermittent bursts "

"Jam (v. n.)

   A preserve made from whole fruit boiled to a pulp with sugar. "

"Jug (n.)

   Derogatory term for a woman’s breasts "

Butternutt12 (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Butternutt12, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have reverted the edits in question and warned the vandal. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Remember, Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia... in the future, don't be afraid of making changes yourself! And if you need help, feel free to ask :) -Clueless (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Branching Terminology

I think the terminology section oughta be branched into its own article. Couple reasons. First, it's long. Second, a lot of the info there applies to all kinds of climbing. A dyno is a dyno and a jug is a jug regardless what kinda climbing you're doing.

Ok this is me again, unless I hear from someone, I'm going to branch this section, and I'm going to start putting a tag at the beginning of climbing articles that says 'This article uses climbing terminology.' So speak up if you have a problem with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.88.205 (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Places to boulder

Hi. I would like to remove indoor places from this page. I think this is for natural spots. Otherwise this will become soon an ad page for climbing gyms. If I do not see objections I will proceed shortly. Mpaa (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a point. Wekn reven 16:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Lucid Dreaming Only Unchallenged V16?

The article stated that LD was the only unchallenged problem of that grade. Not ignoring fact that it is a 50 foot dead ball and has only been around since Feb. 2010, shouldn't The End (Urh Cehovin's 16 move problem in an obscure Slovene crag) be included in the list by these criteria? Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 16:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wheel of Life is also a little odd. There is some controversy over whether it is a boulder problem or a "boulder route". Although the definition for 'problem' is not set in stone, 30 or 40 moves seems to be as high as that goes. Even Dai himself admitted that it wasn't bouldering. As for the Game, it has been downgraded to V15 by Carlo Traversi. I think it would be better to include proposed V16s in a seperate paragraph. As of yet, under 50 V15s have been climbed anyways. Wekn reven i susej eht ^{Talk• Follow} 16:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bouldering/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wadewitz (talk · contribs) 18:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be reviewing this article! Thanks so much for working on it! Wadewitz (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1) Well-written: Yes, the article is clear and concise. A few comments about organization and clarity:

• What about listing chalk as something most boulderers use in the lead?

  Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Bouldering is a form of rock climbing in which the climber attempts to reach the top of a boulder - Perhaps we should say "usually the top", as I think some boulder problems end before the top.

  Alternatively, we could replace "top of a boulder" with "top of a boulder problem", which would include the possibility of a problem ending before the top. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, that sounds good. Wadewitz (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, I found a way around this problem by explicitly mentioning traverses. None of the sources I've seen say anything about problems which end before the top-out, so I think it's good as it is now. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• The lead is not really a summary of the article - needs to mention every section. Competitions aren't mentioned, for example.

  I'll work on expanding the lead once the other content issues are addressed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

2) Verifiable: Yes, the article uses good sources and information is cited using inline citations.

3) Broad in coverage: In general, most aspects of bouldering are covered, but there are some things I think need to be added.

• What do you think about a section on safety and accidents?
• There is no discussion of spotters.

  Above two points addressed by addition of Safety section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  How safe is bouldering in comparison to top-roping? I thought I had read somewhere that there were more accidents bouldering than top-roping - more minor sprains and fractures. Wadewitz (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  I didn't find any statistical analysis comparing the frequency of injuries in the two disciplines, but I did find a snippet explaining why bouldering injuries are common. The section has been expanded. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  Great work! Wadewitz (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• If there is an "Indoor bouldering" subsection, it seems like there should be an "Outdoor bouldering" subsection that talks about some of the famous places and different types of rock that people boulder on, for example, Joshua Tree, Bishop, etc.

  Here's where things get tricky, and I'd appreciate your input. What you've suggested is very logical: bouldering is a discipline which takes place in two settings, outdoor and indoor. However, that's not how any of the sources discuss the topic. Literally every source I've read treats "bouldering" as being an outdoor discipline, and indoor bouldering exists only to simulate the outdoor experience. If we added an Outdoor bouldering section, it would become necessary to comb through the article and replace (almost) every instance of "bouldering/boulderer" with "outdoor bouldering / outdoor boulderer". Rather than doing that, I'm thinking I could expand the intro paragraph of Overview, and then tweak Indoor bouldering to make this issue more explicit. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  That sounds good. The problem is that there is so much detail about indoor bouldering, which is why I was thinking about adding detail about the types of rock and places. I like your idea of expanding the intro paragraph. Wadewitz (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  Expanded. You dig? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  Yes! Awesome! Wadewitz (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• The "History" section is very sparse - it jumps huge decades. Who are the famous boulderers that need to be included in this history beyond the two already there? What about Daniel Woods, for example?
• What do you think about including a section that discusses famous problems or difficult problems, like this?

  I tried to incorporate the above two points into one new paragraph in such a way that won't invite fanboys to arbitrarily add on their favorite climbers/climbs. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I like how you worked that. Wadewitz (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I also think that the section on bouldering shoes can be expanded. There are lots of different kind of shoes. I think the Wikipedia page should summarize at least as much as the REI page. :)

  I'm inclined to disagree here. The REI page is certainly comprehensive, and would be an excellent resource for climbing shoe, but very little of the information presented would be useful in a climbing article, and even less is specific to bouldering. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps we don't need everything there, but I still think some more detail. One sentence explaining the difference in varieties of bouldering shoes hardly seems sufficient. Wadewitz (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  Expanded using the existing references. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  Awesome! That is so much better! Wadewitz (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Many gyms have VB routes, too. Do we have a source that would support adding that information?

  Added. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• There should also probably be an "Environmental impact" section, considering things like this.

  Added. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  That looks great! Wadewitz (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

4) Neutral: Yes.

5) Stable: Yes.

6) Illustrated: Yes, but it might be nice to have more images of people bouldering on different types of rock. Also, current images need a little more info:

• File:Bouldering.jpg - This image needs a source - is it the work of the uploader?

  Err, the description page lists the author and {{GFDL-self}}... what other source information is needed? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry - missed the uploader was the author. Wadewitz (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• File:Five Ten Anasazi Verde.jpg - This image says "permission by Five Ten", but there is no OTRS permission or link that illustrates that.

  Replaced with File:Quechua climbing shoes.jpg. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• File:Indoor Bouldering V3 Rock Spot.webm - The uploader videoed himself? Perhaps, but this be made more explicit in the image description. Usually the photographer and the subject are different people. Also, is the music in the video copyrighted? If so, it will probably have to be edited out.

  Clarified that someone else recorded me. If anyone can correctly identify the music in the background (which I can't, even while wearing headphones at full volume), then I'll try to edit it out. Otherwise, I'm not particularly concerned. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  So, the copyright of the recording is actually owned by your girlfriend. You'll need to put her name or username in the "Author" field and then have her send in an OTRS tkt or just upload it herself under her account. Wadewitz (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  ...or we could just leave it as is, since it will literally never matter. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  It might someday, especially if this article is ever an FA candidate. At that point, this issue would come up again. It is worth getting it right now so there are never any problems in the future! Then you can be immortalized on Wikipedia for sure! :) Wadewitz (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Awesome that two of the pics are women climbing!

This is a great start to the article! Thanks so much for working on it! The climbing articles are in dire shape here! I'll be away this weekend, but back on Monday. That should give you ample time to address these issues. I see no reason why this can't pass after that. If you have any questions, just let me know! Wadewitz (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

One important question: Do you climb? :D --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I do! I've been climbing for about a year. I've mostly been climbing in the gym but am now trying to make the transition to outdoor climbing, which is so beautiful and amazing here in SoCal! What about you? Wadewitz (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I fell in love with bouldering about a year and a half ago, and I've been a gym monkey ever since. I recently got a job as floor staff at my gym, and I've gotten the chance to set some routes too. I would kill for the opportunity to set problems at competitions! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Ok, this looks good - am passing now! Wadewitz (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Just work on the lead a bit - forgot about that. Wadewitz (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot that too. I'll likely wrap that up either tonight or tomorrow. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead expanded. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I just rearranged a bit. Wadewitz (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)