OK, let's get some action here.
The more accomplished one gets as a climber the fewer the differences there are between these two diciplines. For the moderate climber there are great differences.
What are the three greatest differences between (in terms of setting) between bouldering and roped climbing?
I agree. I think bouldering is a way of learning what your body is capable of; it shows you movements that you were unfamiliar with, and encourages you to push the physical limit of what you think you can do.
Setting bouldering, for me is a way to introduce movement to climbers. When I set boulder problems, especially in the easier range, I will very aggressively force a movement with appropriate holds (most often directional jugs). This, combined with the security of not being too high up, is a way to get people to trying new moves.
The bouldering I set is a lot more dynamic than my routes. More dynamic balance movement, more dynamic movement to generate energy, etc... The moves aren't too different that what people find on routes, they are often a bit more exaggerated.\
I will often experiment on the bouldering wall with setting movement I want to try on a route, or a combination of moves.
On routes, I try to focus mainly on flow and enjoyment. Its not just about being able to pull super hard, its about having the skill to find the rest and clipping stance to you can link the whole thing together gracefully and not thruch your way up. I try to make routes a single experience without several different section separated by rests.
Since I just got back from one of the greatest bouldering areas on the planet (Hueco) I will chime in.
Great problems and great routes have one main thing in common.....movement. Other attributes like setting, hold type, safety etc go along with a "great" climb.
Styles of climbing and hold types vary just as much between the two disciplines. Granted most will always have a preference for one or another, but each discipline is NOT limited to having a "pre determined" style of climbing.
Boulder comparison (static/dynamic)- Slim Pickins versus Dragonfly (hueco)
Route comparison (static/dynamic)- Tantrum versus Voodoo Doll (S. Thailand)
Both have great moves, but vastly different styles.
So, my answer is there should not be a difference in style between routes and problems. Your setting SHOULD contain both styles appropriate for the grade you are setting.
I agree with Joe.
Bouldering setting lately (especially in comps) has become all about big, dynamic movement. While this is fun some of the time, not all bouldering should be set that way. In the same way that not all roped climbing should avoid that type of movement.
Everyone has their setting strengths, but the ability to set both styles well should be the goal of all setters.
Okay,
What does it mean to you guys when someone says the some section of a route is "bouldery"?
In my head I see that most roped climbing is "usually" set on less steep terrain, so there is a tendency to play with foot placements that take more body weight (closer to the body's center mass). "Bouldery" movement seems to be more typified by foot placements futher outside the body's center mass nessesitating a more even weight distribution between hands and feet.
It's a balance vs power separation.
I agree that that in the long run that climbing is climbing, however, there are different aspects of each dicipline that appeal to, and play to the strenghths of different people.
If that isn't true then the same kids who win ABS comps should be winning all of the SCS comps and there would be no need to describe the two as different diciplines.
Am I crazy?
What makes a good ABS competitor vs a good SCS competitor?
I don't have time for a long answer right now, but the simple answer would be stamina (or power endurance if you prefer)as a requirement to doing well on longer, roped climbs versus pure power for shorter, bouldering problems (at least in the competition world).
Personally, I like to see comps that require a little of both climbing styles and strengths, regardless of terrain and format.
Well the same main quality makes each setter good at what he/she does. CONSISTENCY in your difficulty of movement throughout your problem/route.
Now we broaden the discussion to the never ending "what makes a climb, great, 5 star, amazing etc). In basic terms, I say its consistency. An extreme example, a 5.14 has only a two move section that makes it 14a. The rest of the climb is 5.10. To many who climb ropes, this would be a horrible route. However, to the boulderer, this could be fantastic.
So good ABS setter can create consistency for his grade. So can a good SCS setter. It still means the setter can gradually increase intensity throughout the climb, but it will be withing the scope of that climb. For example a 5.14a (in most competition venues/gyms) should not start with anything easier than 5.12.
In the end Greg, you are a bit crazy. Some kids dont have the true psyche to want to be pumped and maintain climbing, and some really do. Same with bouldering. I have kids who do bouldering just to stay strong for routes, and others because routes just hold their attention......is this getting into a ADD discussion with todays youth?????
Gentlemen,
First, thank you for your responses. Both of you are highly regarded experts in our field and your ideas are on point. I always enjoy reading your posts.
However, it seems that the both of you maintain that there is little difference between the two diciplines outside of a (possibly small) power endurance factor. Yet, the USAC certifies setters in each of these (not necessarily both), and, at least in the US, we have separate grading systems.
I know that I'm stretching into the realm of esoterica here, but, it's what I do. After 12 years of full time setting, a lot of things become esoteric.
Joe---
In my former life I spent 12 years in the social service industry and I don't think that I could stomach any sort of ADD discussion anymore. hahaha
I find that the differences between ropes and blocs outside are few as described by Joe.
Inside, at comps, is a whole different beast. It basicly boils down to: ability to repeatedly perform with a high power output (blocs) OR ability to perform perfectly (i.e.-get the sequencing right the first time) while pumped stupid (ropes). Another way to look at it is power exhaustion vs. power endurance; one yer dead tired, the other you are so pumped you might wish you were dead! ;)
I find that the youngest categories (D and C) can do very well at both disciplines, but that as kids get older and grow they do become more specialized at one or the other. There is really good generic evidence to support this if you look at WC events. That is to say that there are very few competitors that do well at both disciplines, and the 'stars' tend to be committed to one discipline.
We (the USAC setting committee) do certify on the different disciplines for just these reasons. It is a skill to get separation in 10 or fewer moves. It is a different skill to get separation at 50(or more) moves. Add in the height thing...! You get the picture.
Some very good points here, very insightful, and I definitely agree with most of what's been said here.
The way I see it, climbing is climbing, whether it's on short boulder walls or walls 60 feet high. Somewhere along the line the definition of climbing between these two dimensions became severely separated at some gyms, evident from comments such as "This route feels awkward, it's too bouldery" or "Eh this problem is ok, but it's like.. the same thing." This is entirely the setters' fault. By distinguishing heavily that boulder problems should be "bouldery" and routes should be "all endurance", people got used to perceiving that that's what boulder problems and routes should be (I've had people come up to me and said that "boulder problems should have big moves".. drives me nuts). I personally believe that a setter need to understand and use balanced elements of flow, technique, and power to be a decent setter.
I can't really can't put into words how I categorized my boulder problems or routes, because I simply can't - there's too much diversity. Just think of climbing outdoors. There's no distinguished "style" outdoors between boulder problems and routes is there, so why should there be a distinguished style in gyms? I try to blur the line between the two whenever I set. Some boulder problems I'll focus on hard individual movements while others flow much smoothly, and the same goes for routes. Dynamic, static, technical, straight-forward. You should be able to use any of these words to define your sets.
You must log in to post.