crusher. sick climbs, sick climber. curious on tatiana: did you feel like the lower start was worthwhile? or starting on the upper holds would be a better quality climb?
How do you know that the lower start isn’t the FA start? I messaged Ian who did the FA and he said he doesn’t even remember which holds he used. Not sure why people do the easier start.
@@nealraaron “Not sure why people do the easier start.” Judging from your Tatiana video description and Kaya comments, I think you know the answer -- people do the upper start because that's the start that matches the description in the guidebook. Some people think the higher start is higher quality too, without detracting from the grade; I don’t have a dog in that fight, I’ve never sent lmao “How do you know that the lower start isn’t the FA start?” The only data I have is the guidebook, so I used it. I can ask you the same question -- how do you know the upper start isn't the FA start? Ian doesn’t remember, so we default to the book, right? 🤷 Thanks for reaching out to Ian though. Now I’m curious what the guidebook author would say if we ask. In the meantime, I'll edit my og question to replace "FA holds" with "upper holds" to be foolproof. See you at the crag, my dude.
@@yuderekyu I mean typically when there is a rock climb people start from the lowest possible spot if it is possible. If not there’s usually a “stand” and a “sit start”.
@@nealraaron I don’t think it’s that simple. There are plenty of problems where adding a sit start doesn’t increase the difficulty and adds extra ass-to-the-grass moves just for the sake of it (unless it’s a lowball roof). In that case, it’s worth noting the start variation, but both types of ascents are“valid rock climbs” IMO. That said, if the crux is right at the start and only exists in one variation-like the sit start-then yeah, it's important to name and grade both versions separately and be crystal clear about which one you climbed.
crusher. sick climbs, sick climber.
curious on tatiana: did you feel like the lower start was worthwhile? or starting on the upper holds would be a better quality climb?
Didn't know the history of the starting position. The first few moves are pretty low to the ground but worth doing!
How do you know that the lower start isn’t the FA start? I messaged Ian who did the FA and he said he doesn’t even remember which holds he used. Not sure why people do the easier start.
@@nealraaron “Not sure why people do the easier start.”
Judging from your Tatiana video description and Kaya comments, I think you know the answer -- people do the upper start because that's the start that matches the description in the guidebook. Some people think the higher start is higher quality too, without detracting from the grade; I don’t have a dog in that fight, I’ve never sent lmao
“How do you know that the lower start isn’t the FA start?”
The only data I have is the guidebook, so I used it. I can ask you the same question -- how do you know the upper start isn't the FA start? Ian doesn’t remember, so we default to the book, right? 🤷
Thanks for reaching out to Ian though. Now I’m curious what the guidebook author would say if we ask. In the meantime, I'll edit my og question to replace "FA holds" with "upper holds" to be foolproof. See you at the crag, my dude.
@@yuderekyu I mean typically when there is a rock climb people start from the lowest possible spot if it is possible. If not there’s usually a “stand” and a “sit start”.
@@nealraaron I don’t think it’s that simple. There are plenty of problems where adding a sit start doesn’t increase the difficulty and adds extra ass-to-the-grass moves just for the sake of it (unless it’s a lowball roof). In that case, it’s worth noting the start variation, but both types of ascents are“valid rock climbs” IMO.
That said, if the crux is right at the start and only exists in one variation-like the sit start-then yeah, it's important to name and grade both versions separately and be crystal clear about which one you climbed.
Great looking stone!