after talking with several strong people (koyamada, robinson, windisch) they all suggested to start in the most logical and clear position. its also a way to avoid any "discussions" about the startholds in the future. so the "new" start woud be matched both hands on a very obvious rail (the rail on which i have my right heel in the pic below). it is the lowest hold. you don't need a pad, just a carpet/small foampad and its kind of a "lay-down-start".
 |
| "new" laydownstart: both hands matched on the rail i have my right heel on. pic by angela wagner |
before i started on a to me also "logical" sitdownstart. sitting and with my right hand on the same rail but my left allready on the crimp further up. i am still not sure if this "new" start really makes much sense or not - its a logical possibility for sure and it stops any discussions about "the" startingholds. but the concept of "sitting down and taking the holds you get" seems also pretty ok with me. but as these days strange things happen to sitdownstarts and discussions about it (story of two worlds), its may more consequent to go from the lowest and most logical holds. its then somehow defined (and shoud be decently marked in areas where thats ok, like in the ticino) and like that missunderstandings of the start-position/holds can be easily avoided.
 |
| same move, different angle. new start both hands on the big rail. first move then up to where i have the left hand in the pic. its an "easy" move for itself, but it makes continuing SUPER HARD!!! pic by ronny birchler |
i still can climb the sequence, but a consequence oft that new start is that its WAY harder now. you can FEEL the new start when entering into the crux at the end. i am not too happy about that, for me it was allready hard enough from the sds...
honestly this doesn't make much sense to me. if you, who are quite likely to grab the FA, find it logical to star with a hand on the good hold, and the other one on the crimp, so be it. once the FA is done, it'll be up to the repeaters to start as you did, so that they can claim a valid ascent of the problem.
ReplyDeleteto start laying down on the lowest possible hold would make sense only if you were afraid of someone else climbing the problem right after you, and claiming the ascent of the "whole" line. possibly changing the name and the grade..
keeping a blog and all, I don't see how there could be any controversy about the correct starting holds. I guess it would be well documented where you started, with a post here or a video or whatever.
my 2 cents.
hey massimiliano,
ReplyDeletethanks for your input. the "thing" with starting on the lowest logical hold of a boulder makes just sense for me if it "completes" a line. so if there is such a "starthold" it can make sence, if there is no such a starthold i dont see the point in a laydown either (in an area like ticino). at the "fisch" there is such a very obvious starthold, so it makes sense in a way as it really completes the very nice line of the boulder. greez, martin
I see what you mean, and of course if a massive starting hold is so obvious, then by all means go for it.
ReplyDeleteI was under the impression that you already found the previous holds quite logical as a start for the problem, following the idea that whatever you can reach sitting down it's a legit start.
but of course your last point is valid, so good luck with the new start and the FA.
you were also right with your impression about the sds-start. i still think its also a legit start to take the holds you reach sitting - may in the end there will be a sds (for the lazy ones) and (for the purists) a laydown... - wee will see!
ReplyDelete