From: kochte@scivax.stsci.edu
Subject: $0.02 worth of chalk thoughts...
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:04:16 GMT

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! Something I can put MY two cents worth in...  :-)

[excerpts from various postings follow]

Recently (today? yesterday?) billw@ace.mentorg.com (Bill Wright) writes:

>In article <BuC1Ex.1w7@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>, brodesky@td2cad.intel.com (Michael
>Brodesky) writes:
>|> 	OK, I'll bite, yes the chalk makes rock look bad to some, and
>|> to others it might look artistic. I'm not going to get into this part of
>|> the thread. Instead I will focus on Ego's of Chalk users.
>My only point is that chalk is ugly.  That is my only gripe against it.

That's a pretty good gripe against it. I don't like to see chalk all over the
place, either (if you haven't guessed, I typically don't use chalk). I
personally don't like the sight of chalk all over routes. Well, like so many
people have pointed out in some past postings, some people do, and some people
don't.

One other 'gripe' about it is when I see people out climbing locally on
'little' 5.3/5.4 routes, and coat their hands (AND shoes!) in chalk. I don't
see the point. Maybe I'm dense. Maybe just because I (and a large number of
beginners I've introduced to the sport in tennis shoes) can get up 5.3s and
5.4s doesn't mean that someone else can without chalk? I dunno. It's something
I'm still trying to understand....

>|> I also find it funny that Bill says Chalk does not make a
>|> impossible route possible, but goes on to say that people can climb
>|> harder routes with chalk. If I climb 5.11 face and I think 5.12 routes
>|> are impossible, does this mean if I use chalk, I could climb a 5.12.
>I have yet to hear a single person deny that chalk enables one to climb
>at a higher grade.  

Okay, here I is! Well, only sorta. I haven't found that chalk enables me to
climb at higher numbers. I can get up 5.9 routes with or without chalk just
fine, and struggle up 5.10 routes with and without chalk without any noticeable
performance enhancement (for me; remember, this applies to me, not all you
other guys!). For the record, about the only time I've ever really used chalk
is when the weather has been exceedingly humid (and then I still rarely  use
it), if it's just finished raining (and then again, rarely do I dip), or if I
go to the local gym and lots of people are climbing at that time (them thar
holds get slippery). I've carried it with me on competitions, but only used it
on one climb in those competitions (I guess I'm blessed with hands that
perspire before the climb, but dry off when I start...) :-)

(but Bill, are you saying I can get up these 5.10s more easily now if I use
chalk? Maybe?? Hmmmm.....tempting....but no thanks....)  :-)

>|> 	Why do people who use chalk have big Ego's? Bill is spending
>|> his time telling us how he does not use chalk, saying he can do routes
>|> without it. Now who is boosting there ego? 
>Clearly someone who simply did not understand my post.  EVERYONE can do
>routes without chalk.  Just maybe not as difficult.  This isn't a boast.
>EVERYONE can do it.  Hey, I can breathe too.  Maybe this is a boast to
>Brodesky.  Heck, I just assume he can breathe.  

Breathe? We're supposed to *breathe*?? Awww, damn! Now I've got something
ELSE to do when climbing....
:-) :-)

>|>       From Bills posting's this year we know he uses spider mits. And
>|> that he is just a 5.10 climber. Do spider mits count as something that
>|> gets you up a climb easier.
>Of course!!!  What an imbecile!  I freely admit this.  My one gripe was
>that chalk uses don't admit this.  There is one difference of course...
>I don't leave ugly marks behind.  But the marks weren't my main point.

Thanks for leaving me out of it!  ;-)

>|>Should we all go back to climbing with
>|> EB'S, instead of the latest style shoe. I'm sure Bill does not climb
>|> in an out dated shoe, but uses the latest technology to do harder
>|> climbs. Should we stop using camming devices beacuse they make it
>|> easier to do pure crack climbs. I say no. 
>I said this in my initial respond to this chalking issue when Eugene mentioned
>that it was silly to chalk for 5.7.  He is arguing with me and using all
>my arguments.  Heck, we agree!

Hey, I missed that post!  :-(   
I get busy with work for a few days and everything just slips on by....

And almost as recently cline+@cs.cmu.edu (Kenneth Cline) writes:

>Please understand that my previous note on this subject mentioned the
>use of chalk for marking holds, not in defense of such tactics but
>instead since this use of chalk had been completely overlooked in the
>current discussion.  There are climbers who use such tactics who climb
>better than you, and would almost certainly continue to outclimb you
>even if you took up all their tactics and devoted you life to training
>and climbing.  

I guess that's what I'd get for figuring that there's more to life than
JUST climbing.....  :-)

>And one more time:  Keep the chalk off your shoes, and away from my
>footholds.  Wet chalk is about as sticky as mud - sticky rubber has a
>better chance of adhering to wet rock without goo in between.  I hope
>there is no argument in favor of chalking dry footholds.

I'm still trying to figure out why some people out here chalk their shoes,
though....

And then jrb@Ingres.COM (John Black) writes:

>>   Question for Bill: are you offended just by the visual appearance
>>   of chalk, or also by the performance-enhancing aspects?
>>   How would you feel about an invisible method for inhibiting
>>   hand perspiration that didn't leave a residue on the rock?

I personally would be all for an invisible method (how is that X-Factor stuff?
I never tried it, and have heard mixed reviews about it from some of the local
people out East here). 
--
Mark 
(not as ugly as the 'marks' left on rock by other climbers, though...)
:-)
Newsgroups: rec.climbing