On 3/10/2011 Wendy wrote:
>Did you catch the almost cut off response after "so you don't shower for
>several days?"? "ooh that's gross".
>
>hmmm, not sure that's a key to success with her then.
>
>She was weird. In fact, that whole film was kinda weird. And the ads
>were annoying. So i didn't bother with the other two.
>
>But hey, Simey and i agree on something. He really does have amazing
>eyes.
The other two only had the 15 sec ad at the start....and his eyes are amazing....
I reckon Honnold was feeding of her attraction to him. She was simultaneously captivated and repelled.
On 3/10/2011 Wendy wrote:
>(snip) the ads were annoying. So i didn't bother with the other two.
>
I thought the Alex Honnold vids were very well done.
I didn't see any ads though I watched all three, ... a filter thing on the host server?
Given that the interviewer was not a rock climber, I think the interview was about as genuine a glimpse into what the fellow is like in 'real life' as we are ever likely to get, and to that end John Long's explanations of what was going on for the non rock climber viewer, were an enhancement.
I don't know about others, but (like alluded to in the vid), I found my fingers/palms going sweaty watching him climb the crux roof of that north face of Sentinel solo effort.
I am also amazed that he can zone-out the techno geekery and filming bods watching his every move on something that is already hard to do without further distraction being added to the event.
>But hey, Simey and i agree on something. He really does have amazing eyes.
I braved the ads again and the 2nd one was fun. It showed lots more personality (esp on behalf of the presenter) - i would have thought the actual segment would benefit more from the sections of joking together. I didn't know she was the reporter assaulted in Cairo. Kinda pertinent to the cameraman's discussion of risky work in the 3rd vid.
On 4/10/2011 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>John Long's explanations of what was going on for the non rock climber viewer, were an enhancement.
John Long's explanations were tripe and made Alex Honnold look like some crazed dude with a death wish. There was no explanation of how solid he must feel on the rock to do what he does, or the numerous times he must downclimb whenever he isn't happy with a particular move, or even the history and progression of the routes he is climbing ie. the first ascent of the North West Face of Half Dome was absolutely cutting edge when first climbed over five days with much aid in 1957, its free ascent in the late 70s was also cutting edge and now Alex's effort is another step again (and one which most climbers would never have imagined possible). In other words he is not just some freak rambling up random cliff faces.
It was a pity really as I would have thought John Long would have been able to put Alex's achievements into some sort of context. I recall a television show many years ago where Greg Matthews (former Australian text cricketer) was dragged up The Bolt Ladder (20) on the Sydney Sea Cliffs by Mike Law. Greg later mentions how Mikl has soloed the route and draws the comparison of Mikl soloing that route as being similar to him facing the fatest West Indian bowlers without any padding or protection and relying purely on his ability as a batsmen to survive. Maybe 60 Minutes should have called on Greg Matthews to commentate.
You are viewing the JL commentary from a knowledgeable climber's perspective simey, and to that end you are entirely correct.
However I suspect that the target audience for that 60 minutes clip was the typical yank TV viewer (bus style tourist to Yosemite type), who would ask questions like "How do they get the ropes up there?"
He (JL) certainly could have provided more information, but to a non-climber I suspect it would have been irrelevant.
~> Would you be interested in the cutting edge timeline of astrophysics according to the conka Kerchoo theory*, or would you rather a (lame to an astrophysicist), generalised overview to get the gist of what was happening, apart from the obvious that you can see?