Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Bold is in!

richie cunningham

2-Apr-2004
3:23:04 PM

gone


nmonteith

2-Apr-2004
3:25:00 PM

was it ever out?

James

2-Apr-2004
3:34:40 PM

>bold is in
>(according to mr baxter and co)

well if mr baxter says so then it MUST be true. here's me thinking sport climbing was all the rage. I hope to see everyone skipping clips on those cheaping soft sport climbs at Camels on the weekend.


phil_nev

3-Apr-2004
11:10:50 AM

I have lost all respect for rock magazine.... They put a picture of kent in the mag wearing that awefull hat.... What were they thinking???


mousey

3-Apr-2004
7:52:01 PM

is the new issue out yet?


Rupert

4-Apr-2004
9:49:58 PM

yep its out - its in the shops all over but my subscription copy hasn't showed up yet.


mousey

4-Apr-2004
11:00:01 PM

yeh they havent gotten it in at work (climbing gym) yet- wondering where the hell it is?


phil box

5-Apr-2004
9:35:58 AM

I hate it when the shops get their copy of Rock before I get my subscription copy. How hard can it be to mail the subscription copies out a couple of days early.


nmonteith

5-Apr-2004
12:23:10 PM

i stopped subscriping as the subsciption copy ALWAYS came at least a week later than the newsagent copies.

SteveH

5-Apr-2004
2:01:28 PM

On 4/04/2004 Mighty Mouse wrote:
>yeh they havent gotten it in at work (climbing gym) yet- wondering where
>the hell it is?

Get used to it, they always send it to gyms later than the stores. Our load just arrived about 10 minutes ago. The Castle Hill article was sweet, wish I was over there again :)

dalai

5-Apr-2004
2:05:05 PM

Just received correspondance from our man in the field Alrob. The weather over at Castle Hill is perfect right now!!

Duncan

5-Apr-2004
9:13:50 PM

Yes steve, the Castle Hill article by "Philip" Staples is excellent. Makes him sound so grown up!


Rich

6-Apr-2004
5:33:09 PM

got my subscription copy yesterday after avoiding looking at it in the newsagents as per usual!


HM33

6-Apr-2004
5:54:55 PM

still havn't got mine

kieranl

6-Apr-2004
8:31:03 PM

I don't mind bold but I don't like how we tend to minimise risk in our climb descriptions.
It's discouraging to have a guidebook editor downplay the seriousness of a climb where the original description clearly stated the risk.
Obfuscation is also a problem : "If you scare easily you might want to avoid the bold Direct Start" (Blyth Street, Arapiles Selected Climbs p170). Is this a warning of danger or an incitement to test oneself?
It's a tricky issue. I've probably been guilty of glossing over seriousness in the guides I have written. Luckily no-one has bought them.
Kieran

James

6-Apr-2004
8:45:41 PM

>Obfuscation is also a problem : "If you scare easily you might want to
>avoid the bold Direct Start" (Blyth Street, Arapiles Selected Climbs p170).
>Is this a warning of danger or an incitement to test oneself?

its both really. An invitation if you're so inclined, & just enough to get the alarm bells ringing if you do "scare easily". It'd make me think twice, save it for a good day & make me look very closely before launching up.

There is a fine line bewteen just enough & understatement. But I assume, & so expect, understatement. With this attitude I have generally gone unscathed thus far (touch wood!!).

kieranl

6-Apr-2004
9:11:10 PM

James,
The thing is that we both understand the game that's being played. What do we do about the people who don't grasp the nuances?
I think we have to cater for them.
Kieran

kieranl

7-Apr-2004
9:44:06 PM

Hi WM,
I've tried to avoid glossing over seriousness in my guides but I've probably fallen into the trap.
"Twentieth Century Black Feral Cat" at Slander Gully may be an example.
It's difficult when writing a guide to work out when the "engaging the reader" component compromises the "informing the reader" component.
Unfortunately, you just have to be careful. One of my climbs at Arapiles, Calabrese, was written up in Louise Shepherd's guide as "not well-protected" on the first pitch. In the Mentz/Tempest guide the protection was described as "just adequate". Why the change? I don't know because I wasn't asked. The first description says to me that the gear is no good (correct for this climb) while the second suggests that there is just enough gear (which is wrong).
I am very proud of Calabrese. BA and me were heading to the Northern Group, a bit discouraged from a poor day's climbing the day before, and we went up there on a whim.
I'd thought about the face before and seen some features like the initial crack and some horizontal breaks but I had not inspected it close up.
We did it on-sight, I cleaned holds as I led. It rained at about one-third height on the first pitch and I had to stand there beside a poor #2 RP until the face dried out (you can traverse off at that point but I wanted a clean ascent).
Just take care out there.

rolsen

12-Apr-2004
10:35:26 AM

On 6/04/2004 kieranl wrote:
>What
>do we do about the people who don't grasp the nuances?
>I think we have to cater for them.

The tassie freycinet (spelling) guide use waddy a fair bit. They describe a climb as the waddiest climb on the cliff etc Ive always thought this is a bit misleading. Waddy could mean stupid, not worth doing or loose, or death route.

ps. I hope a newbie can join this forum!


hex-TROLL

12-Apr-2004
11:09:06 AM

Newbie Rolsen--- you've got some funky ideas, dude--- chuck 'em in the cauldron any-time ya want !

Luv, HEX

There are 23 messages in this topic.