How the World's Most Difficult Bouldering Problems Get Made
outsideonline.com
outsideonline.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69YVimEOX3I
Problem 4 starts somewhere around 2:07:00.
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.
Nathanial Coleman at 2:12:40 (in article) is unbelievable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
* Flexibility
* Balance
* Skill moves (matches, switches, flagging, heel/toe hooks, etc)
* Dynamic moves (jump and grab, throws, etc.)
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).
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.
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.
EDIT: Random plug, though this probably won't apply to anyone here: Rush MMA in downtown Macon, GA.
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.
Unbelievable natural talent - I've seen him out at Dogpatch in SF easily climbing v11's.
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.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feveaPjUb4E [2] http://joinrandori.com/blog
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).
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.
But I agree with you otherwise!
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.
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.