From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: Re 2 Worlds of Climbing
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 07:05:09 GMT

In article <92772@netnews.upenn.edu> ian@SOFTSHOE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU
(Ian M Glazer) writes:
>	There have become 2 different worlds of climbing.

I suspect that you will find far more than 2 worlds.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who see two kinds
of people and those who don't.  You aren't per chance a CS major?
Just asking.
Tejada-Flores would assert there are about 6-8 games depending on his mood.

>One world is made up of climbers with Alpinist blood within them.
>These climbers are the traditional ones.
>The ones who know what to do with TCU's and Camelots.

>The second world is made up of climbers with more, shall we say,
>Yuppie blood in them. They have taken a lot of the danger factor
>out of climbing.  This is not to say that they are any whimpier
>than the climbers in the first world.  They have replaced the danger
>with intensely difficult clim
>	The basic point is that the two worlds have trouble seeing eye to eye.
>The numerous flame wars here have proven that.
>Though how we all climb is the same, but the attitudes surrounding climbing
>is different for each world.
>Moral of the story:  We are just passing through. The rock will ALWAYS be
>here.

This is a nice analysis, but comes down a bit hard on "Yuppies."

The first group of climbers are the boulderers and the soloists.
In many respects they practice the purist forms of climbing with minimum
gear (the nude soloists/boulderers more so) and the fewest issues.
Note that top rope bouldering doesn't count in this game.
It's your raw skill to get up whether it's the Thimble or the South Face
of Lhotse.  Roped soloing (first ascent of an El Cap Grade VI) is seen as
respectable, shorter climbs approach a fuzzy boundary.

The next group, perhaps your second world, are the sport climbers.
The newest group.  Superior technical proficiency is a strength.
Well rounded?  Perhaps not.  Fine climbers when it comes to piecing
moves together: gymnasts.  Many can lead, but most do some variation
on rope roping.  Routes 1/2 rope length up cliffs sometimes much higher.
5.12 climber? Can they do this on a lead?
The falling (subjective) hazard is the same.  I would not say they have
replaced the "danger."  They have somewhat fewer objective hazards.
I liken this to track skiing (you reading this George?).  You're
okay on a prepared, maintained surface.  Any of the other groups
can play your game, but you are not necessarily trained to play their games.
That's part of the problem with specialization.

The crag climbers are mostly weekend warriors; this is mostly climbing on rock.
These guys are not alpinists.
They do comparatively short, but perhaps difficult and multipitched climbs.
They have to have skills like placing pro, be competent belayers,
understand rock fall, get out of minor problems.  They have to be competent
to lead pitches (preferably leap frog). A few of these guys might do weekend
walls (Vs and VIs).  Scale independent and can be very good.

Peak baggers occasionally show their faces.  They may not do anything
exceeding class 3-(4 barely).  They are probably the numerically most
significant group.  But they have a reasonable "game."

More serious climbers include alpinists/super-Alpinists.
Small self-contained, light-weight, ambitious.  You have to be
capable of working on mixed ground (rock and ice, not just free and aid).
Experience might have to include skiing (no relevance to "sport" climbing),
avalanches, weather, etc.  You begin to replace tactical mountaineering
with smarter strategic climbing.  You might have to retreat.
5.7 isn't like 5.7 above, you might have a 30+ lb pack on.

Expeditionary climbing: the "fewest rules," greatest costs, largest
scale, the dinosaur of the climbing games.  Now practiced only by
those countries who can afford it.  Ladders and bridges?  Okay.
Chalk?  Say what?  Bolts?   This is also a strategic and logistic game.
You have to deal with balancing people's strong personalities.

I was hoping to get by with 3-4 groups, and I end up equaling the bottom
of Lito's games.  Each one of these groups has representives who
are reading and who have posted.  So you have at least 5 "trad" groups
to the one "Yuppie" group.  The question is how the five are the
same as the one, and how do they differ (significantly).

The question of one's freedom and objectives with modern sport climbing
differ somewhat.  Like what stops this game versus the other five?
The summit?  The rap bolts?  The "top?"  You have to view this on three
scales: the move (or sequence), the pitch, and the complete climb.
Each group needs to answer: the objective at what cost?
What if one group says, "We are willing to sacrifice the rock."
More than one group does and will.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Acting Associate Editor, Software and Publication Reviews
  Scientific Programming
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Seeking Books to buy:	Bongard, Pattern Recognition
			Imhof, Cartographic Relief Presentation
			Books on or by Benjamin Whorf
From: j_elison@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jeff Elison)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:30:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Artificial Walls
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA