Jump to content

Talk:Rock climbing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Gabbro climbing area

I would be very curious to find out where a gabbro climbing area would be, given the rapid weathering characteristics of such ultra-mafics, and the relative scarcity of surficial occurrence. Perhaps a slowish cooling basalt lava? Location? Not exactly doubting, just very curious. Might have to plan a trip there!

There's gabbro on the Cuillin ridge of Skye (island off west coast of Scotland), remarkable stuff to climb on, great friction, even when wet.

Once I complete a number of the other Yosemte related articles I am working on, I plan to add some of the history of Yosemite rock climing here, which has been very influential in North America. ClaudeMuncey

I really don't understand why this page is called 'rock climbing' and yet it is obviously but a history/guide to the climbing in the British Isles... good information by any means, but maybe a little tweaking of the page title is in order... AdamMorgan 07:34 14 May 2007 UTC


A few other types

Deep-water(bouldering over water)

Czech style - no chalk, cams, or bolts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown (talk • contribs) 07:34 14 May 2007 UTC

categorization of types of climbing

I've cleaned up a bit on the distinctions between different types of climbing, especially outlining which techniques are sub-categories of lead climbing. This begs the question, though of how to organize these categories. There are many different aspects to each, indoor/outdoor, rock/route, lead/top-rope, sport/trad, free/aid. Most of these are orthoginal categories. I don't see a natural way to organize this.


This section is a mess ... very misleading. Lead climbing applies to both aid and free climbing. It could be seen in opposition to toproping.

The free climbing entry should mention that gear is used for protection. It should be distinguished from free soloing, in which no gear is used.

A route that is predominantly protected by bolts, even if they were placed on lead, is a sport climb, not a trad climb. Trad climbs are climbs that are protected primarily with gear placed by the leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown (talk • contribs) 07:34 14 May 2007 UTC

Criticism of Rock Climbing Section

This section makes statements that are utterly subjective and furthermore, likely to be false. It claims that rock climbing produces less environmental impact than hiking for instance. Firstly, there is a strong ethic amongst hikers to never walk off of trails. This is clearly not a strong ethic found amongst boulderers; bouldering areas such as big bend bouldering area in Moab, The Happy Boulders and the Buttermilks in Bishop, CA, and many others have been wreacked by the trampling feet and crashpads of boulderers. Smith Rocks state park in oregon has been so eroded by sport climbers that huge trail maintenence projects have been necessary to stave off catastrophic erosion problems and still, the place is much less vegetated than it was 50 years ago.

The greatest environmental impact of rock climbing is not made by anyone's feet, however... it is caused by the combined strain caused by hundreds of thousands of people buying upwards of 20 lbs of petrolium products each and treamendous amounts of aluminum. Hikers buy shoes or boots (I'm not talking about backpackers who also buy a bunch of petrolium products in the form of polypropelene and ripstop nylon).

This section would also benefit from a little additional information about routes closing due to nesting birds such as pigeons and falcons. 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathfu (talk • contribs) 04:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


OK, so I decided to get bold and change this section a bunch. I deleted the sentence stating that climbing is less impactful than hiking and I think thats very valid unless someone comes up with a citation that validates it. I made the statement about clean climbing a little more accurate because clean climbing means climbing without using pitons and copperheads/bashies... in otherwords, it is hammerless climbing. I'm pretty sure that it also means not placing bolts. Many famous climbs have seen excessive wear due to the use of this gear, but the wear is for the most part purely aesthetic; preventing it does not ever prevent birds from losing their nesting sites, approach trails from being eroded or huge amounts of petrochemicals from being consumed.

I made a big formatting change by adding a subsection and calling it "Ethics". This section should deal with the fact that alot of people are pretty upset about the fact that people are climbing around on places that are sacred to them (and in the case of devil's tower, renaming them after the ultimate agent of evil in christian mythology...but maybe thats just a complaint of mine).

The last thing that I did was to delete the disclamer that was kind of floating around in the criticism section about how climbing is dangerous and we're not responsible for people getting hurt or something. I think there is no danger of anyone getting sued because the page doesn't contain instructions about how to climb, but if we need a disclaimer, it should probably go in a seperate section because its not a criticism of climbing.--Mathfu (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the main concerns with most of not all of the climbing articles is a lack of sources. I've been planning to go through and source but have never quite had the time. I'll see what I can start to do.In the mean time feel free to add sources.... which is a polite way of saying please go ahead.(olive (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

Re: Indoor Climbing revert

Another article exists, Indoor climbing. Rather than needlessly increasing the length of this article, why not improve that one instead? Additionally, as someone stated previously, this isn't an article on climbing in England. Finally, citations are appreciated. --H4lf 14:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

While this article is a good start, it could use citations and better organization. --H4lf 17:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Request: danger of rock climbing

Any history about the dangers? It looks so dangerous. (Bjorn Tipling 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

Climbing clubs

I propose that we move the list of climbing clubs to its own page, so that it does not become too large on the main page. Robogymnast 17:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • That sounds reasonable. The list is far from complete (the most prominent of all is probably Club Alpin Français which is not there) and then there are the occasional spam entries. However, a "List of (prominent) climbing clubs" page will undoubtedly attract spam. There is already Category:Climbing organisations which includes all those climbing clubs which have Wikipedia articles; we could just link to that. Rwxrwxrwx 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What about adding a see also link to Alpine Club, which covers most of them. Ice climbing is similar. Kevin 03:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead Climbing

Hey guys, nice work on this article, but we seriously need some help over here in Lead climbing. If any of you could give me a hand writing up a breif hsitory of lead climbing it would be greeat :-) (I'm finding it hard to find sources) Jason McConnell-Leech 07:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Traditional" Needs Work and Referencing

Last statement is incorrect. In fact, the term "traditional climbing" in U.S. arose in late 70's and early 80's over how bolts were placed, especially in Tuolumne Meadows, not on the matter of bolts themselves. Two key points central to defining traditional climbing at its well documented, historical roots are:

- "traditional" was first coined in 1984 Ascent article "Tricksters and Traditionalists." As the article shows, traditionalists very much allowed themselves bolts placed on the lead. Of course natural protection (then mostly nuts and some cams) were the mainstay and preferred, but the essential issue defining "traditional" and distinguishing it from emerging "sport" (in the article dubbed "trickster") was not to bolt or not to bolt. The dividing issue was HOW protection is placed, not the protection technology itself. Traditional climbing placed bolts on the lead without any previewing of the route from above, and without hooks or overhead ropes for tension while placing. In a pivotal war of the day in the center of the first significant U.S. debate, Tuolumne Meadows, traditionalists removed bolts from a new route just because they were placed on tension from above, not because they were bolts - and the war was off and running between competing styles.

- while protection technology was not the heart of the first traditional and sport conflict, climbing STYLE was at the nub of the debate. Not only did traditionalists protest previewing from above as much as protecting from above, they also were angered by rehearsing moves while hanging on tension, and by resting on the rope after a fall. The accepted traditional approach of the day was to lower to a hands free stance after a fall and begin again; or, to lower to the beginning of the pitch or the ground to start over. The growing sport approach was (and still is in some sport styles) to hang and rest. Finally, the traditional approach of the day was generally to quit after a few falls. Repeated falling and working of the route, multiple attempts over many days (so called "sieging"), especially using fixed ropes to regain high points for working, all were anathema to traditionalists.

Here are some starting sources which should be acknowledged in content and referenced for readers. First, see "Tricksters and Traditionalists," by Tom Higgins, Ascent, Sierra Club, 1984. A link to a verbatim web version (I have Sierra Club written permission for posting to the source site) is:

http://www.tomhiggins.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=19&limit=1&limitstart=8

Here is a link to a one page table which summarizes the several STYLE issues from the watershed time period when traditional and sport first arose in stark contention and when "traditional" first came into parlance:

http://www.tomhiggins.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=19

And finally, for those seeking perspective and specific documentation on how the traditional-sport divide has carried through to today, with 21 references to recent climbing literature on the subjects, here is a relevant link:

http://www.tomhiggins.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=19&limit=1&limitstart=0

Tom Higgins (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Tom Higgins

History

The article is careful to emphasise rock climbing as a sport, although the lead does not mention this. The natives of St Kilda were climbing with ropes to collect birds and eggs long before the Victorians. I have no idea if there are other non-sporting examples from antiquity. Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But instead of just whining about it - fix it. That is after all what wikipedia is about! :) Wynand.singels 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Putting in citations and more facts to enhance this page quality

I would like to make the "rock climbing" search more accurate by adding citations and add more facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dville (talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do! -Clueless (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

yelling

i need to do a report you were NO help thanksw alot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.103.69 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. What could you have used more information on? -Clueless (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section is way too long, and represents a pretty gross violation of WP:WEIGHT, especially since this particular article seems to be written in summary style. Criticism sections are frowned upon in general, and it is better to put any criticism into the main body of the text when appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Rock climbing: Lead vs Free

Hi OMCV,

First, thanks for your numerous edits and general cleanup of the rock climbing pages. They've been needing that for a while.

I have a question about your usage of the terms "free climbing" vs "lead climbing". I was taught to believe that free climbing is the opposite of aid climbing, not a synonym for leading. I believe -- though I'd have to check to be sure -- that several climbing books reflect this usage. Before I go to the books to find out, could I ask what your sources were? I'd like to figure out whether this a regional difference, a universal ambiguity, or just a simple mistake on my part.

Thanks! -Clueless (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that "free climbing" involves placing gear solely as a precaution. In contrast in "aid climbing" gear is placed in order to advance. According the intro of chapter 11 in the 6th edition of Freedom of the Hills lead climbing is and aspect of "free climbing" and "aid climbing" but can also be an aspect of "non-technical scrambling". After all "aiding" definitely involves leading. I would say leading is an aspect of all partnered climbing except top roping. I expect that you would be able to find "free" and "leading" treated as synonyms, I'm not sure if its a regional issue or an especially prevalent misconception similar to "free climbing" vs "free soloing" or "bouldering" vs "scrabbling". Actually Freedom of the Hills might add to the problem since the chapters on "rock climbing" are 9. Rock-Climbing Technique 10. Rock Protection 11. Leading on Rock 12. Aid Climbing. Chapters 9-11 apply to "free climbing" while chapters 10-12 apply to "aid climbing". This just shows the overlap in technique between the two styles. I think it would be best if WP used terms in the same way as Freedom of the Hills, its a pretty solid reference. I didn't mean any offense with my comments am happy to help in any way possible.--OMCV (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled on this discussion the other day and it is now on my watch list. I am concerned that the book you use might be a US POV. I think you should take this discussion to somewhere like Talk:Climbing where you might get a more international set of viewpoints. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Good point Bduke. I'm happy to see another chemist interested in climbing jargon. However, I really don't think this is like our (Americans) inane predilection towards keeping kcal rather than moving to the more reasonable units of kJ. I'll be interested to see what, if any, documentation or reports of oral tradition there is for "free" = "lead". It should be noted that both Clueless and I are from the US so this specific situation is not yet an international affair. I'm going to move this to the rock climbing talk page since climbing seems a bit general.--OMCV (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I figured out the origin of the misconception. Indoor climbing gyms often have two different certification levels. The first level requires a "belay test" after which the climber is given a "belay card" to wear on their harness, this allows the user to belay and climb top ropes in the gym. Top roping is a unique bit of climbing, most people top rope as if they were free climbing however the climb is not protected in a free climbing fashion. This is a side point but interesting. Moving on, the next level of gym certification is a "lead test" after which the climber is given a "lead card" and is allowed to "check out" ropes for "lead climbing" with a similarly qualified partner. In proper/outdoors terminology this "lead climbing" is an indoor version of free sport climbing. The difference from outdoors sport climbing is that instead of bolts and quick draws there is usually modified variation of quick draws permanently fixed to the wall. So, I think this "bastardized" terminology is specific/derived from gym climbing. This different in usage might be worth discussing in the text of rock climbing, free climbing, and lead climbing but I would have no idea how to cite it since I doubt this difference has been documented.--OMCV (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
As a fairly experienced climber, perhaps I can clarify. Lead climbing and Free climbing are overlapping categories. Free climbing is, as explained elsewhere, any climbing where you advance exclusively by pulling on the rock. It includes both trad and sport leading, toproping, free soloing, and bouldering (though colloquially, bouldering is usually thought of as something seperate). Aid climbing, in contrast, is any climbing where advancement is made by the use of tools such as cams, hexes, stoppers, or by climbing using fixed ropes. The use of protective hardware in trad leading, sport leading, and toprope climbing does not render any of them "aid" because the protection is not used to advance. Leading as a category is understood in contrast with toproping and bouldering. Leading means that the lead climber is at times above her last piece of protection, be it removable hardware or a fixed bolt or a piton. When toprope climbing, in contrast, the climber is never above the protection. In toprope, an anchor is built at the top of the climb, the climber then descends to the bottom and climbs out. It is still free climbing because the ropes and hardware are not used to advance, but only as protection against a fall (and sometimes for descent). Bouldering and soloing are not lead climbing because the climber is never above the protection because there isn't any protection! (Unless you count a bouldering pad, which is a kind of portable mattress to cushion falls).
The article is perhaps a little short on clear distinctions between old style leading, modern trad climbing (clean), and sport climbing. Old style leading used pitons and other protection that was hammered into cracks in the rock. While these techniques are still used on occasion, they are frowned upon. In the 1970's and 1980's the "clean climbing revolution" occurred and various pieces of removable hardware were invented that would allow climbers to lead without leaving behind hardware or damaging the rock. Stoppers, hexes, and eventually cams, made it possible to place very strong protection in the rock, and to remove it again when you were done without the damage caused by hammering in old fashioned pitons. Around the same time, however, sport climbing began to grow in popularity. Sport climbing involved placing permanent bolts along a route that can be clipped for protection. Generally, sport climbs are those that do not have cracks or openings that are shaped appropriately for clean climbing hardware, thus making it necessary to drill a hole and place an expansion bolt in the rock. Typically, sport climbing allows a climber to climb at her hardest level because the protection is regarded as very reliable and falling on it is considered acceptable. In trad climbing, falling is generally taboo, because the reliability of the protection is wholly dependent on its placement. Some climbs are "mixed," meaning that you are expected to place your own protection as you ascend, but that there are stretches where there are no cracks or openings where protection can be placed, so permanent bolts have been put in place.
I hope that helps. Someone with better computer/Wiki skills/credentials than I should feel free to lift anything I wrote and put it into the body of the article. 69.210.141.65 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for what you wrote. Don't worry about having the right credentials. You write well and you'd quickly learn any rules about proper formatting and citation if you stuck around. Feel free to fix anything you see that you're confident is wrong and its best to find a reliable citation. Personal knowledge isn't good enough for controversial subject and its a WP goal to have everything well documented.
Per the above discussion I think the major issue is over "free climbing" vs "lead climbing", as for old style leading as you mention it still exists and is called aid climbing, "lead climbing" is common to all belayed climbing. As for "mixed" climbing the term usually refers to a mixture of ice and rock climbing (as denoted by the M scale). A mixture of sport and trad doesn't have a true name and is usually described as "sport with optional gear" or "trad route with a bolted section". As for falling on trad leads I'm not sure if taboo is the right word, I know many people including myself who have fallen on trad leads. The concept that the "leader doesn't fall" went out with body belays. I'd rather fall on a well placed #1 Camalot any day of the week over a bolt. It usually impossible to know who or how long ago the bolt was placed, although inspection will give you some idea. I think generally accepted that sport climbers climber harder routes because a) they don't have to spend time placing gear and b) a route that takes good gear is by its nature usually less than 5.15 terrain. As for top roping being a form of "free climbing", that doesn't fit my ethic, since the anchor is almost always established by means other than "exclusively by pulling on the rock". I would call top roping a twisted form of "aid" climbing. Don't mean to be a crank but best not to be sloppy about definitions.--OMCV (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Tips for spotting" section

I've removed the following text, which was in a section "Tips for spotting" under "Rock climbing basics". This is how-to material that isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article; it's also written in an inappropriate person. Some discussion of spotting seems relevant to the article but the term should at least be defined before doing so! Dricherby (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Tips for spotting

  • Communication- Both spotter and climber need clarity. Never assume that you're spotted, always check before you start climbing. Let the climber know when you are spotting, say "I got you", or something like that. It may seem pointless but it reassures the climber without requiring them to look away from the climb.
  • Pad arrangement- First look at the fall zone (area where the climber will land) and find the biggest hazards for the climber. Place the pads on things that the climber is most likely to hit, ground first, then worry about things like rocks and trees. Another thing to think about is the rock itself, if the ground is sloped towards the wall, or the rock juts out at the bottom, then you may want a pad up against the wall. Climbers can easily roll or even break ankles on poorly placed pads. Watch out for the seams between two pads, and prevent climbers from landing on the edges of pads, this can be worse than the climber simply hitting the ground. As the spotter it is also your responsibility to move the pads as needed, if your climber is no longer over the pads, then they aren't doing any good, this could mean shoving it 3 feet to the left, or getting someone else to pick it up and carry it to where it needs to be. Just remember, its there to be landed on, if the climber misses, its your fault.
  • Spotter's stance- Have the mindset that as a spotter, you have the climber's life in your hands. As the spotter your main goal is to direct the falling climber towards the safest landing possible. This means the climber should NOT land on their back, side, or head, and preferably land on the crash pads you have set up for them. Focus on the small of their back, when they fall it will be easiest to guide their body weight near their center of gravity by their hips. Do NOT stand directly below a climber, this will only get you both hurt, instead stand slightly behind them and be ready to move to accommodate their fall. Remember that even if a climber falls feet first, you still need to guide their hips into the ground until they have their balance.

Political Nonsense

Why 'she' in the first paragraph of Lead Climbing? ('As she progresses, the leader clips the rope..')

The overwhelming majority of climbers are male, so why 'she'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.148 (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

additions

I think it would be helpful to add a list of famous outdoor climbing walls and famous climbers. Kas205 (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Climbing on Private property

This section singles out the US/Access Fund. I think it is unfair and misleading. Possible actions: a) state it as an example, b) remove it ot c) add responsible organisations for other large climbing nations like UK, Germany, France etc.

I have added the UK/BMC for now.

--Ramon1928 (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Indigenous culture considerations

I just removed the {{Clarify-section}} template. I do not know what the user who added the template thought needed clarifying, but I think it is pretty clear. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Terms

Hi I think these definitions should be more clear:

  • To on-sight a route, that is ascend the wall without any foreknowledge without weighting the rope and placing quickdraw or traditional protection, is considered the way to climb with the most style: in place quickdraw is considered onsight, for example many hard routes have non-removable quickdraws (with maillon). Weighting the rope is superflous, we can just call it "free ascent": on-sight, flashing and redpointing are all free ascent.
  • Flashing is similar to on-sighting, except that the climber has previous knowledge of the route: "knowledge" should be better defined (talking with other climbers, talking with a friend, ...)
  • Redpointing means to ascend the route after having first fallen: not only ascent but a "free ascent", otherwise it could be also an aid climb. And it should be specified not also fallen, but also resting on anchors, or downclimb to the ground in a previous attempt. We could just call fall, resting, and downclimb as "previous tries". --Rotpunkt (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

--Rotpunkt (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I got those definitions from the source that's cited. I'll have to check though. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Types of climbing section

The "types of climbing" section (previously called "Styles of rock climbing") describes various types of climbing as a flat list. These terms instead classify climbing at different levels:

  • "free climbing" vs "aid climbing", this is the most important division in rock climbing (http://books.google.it/books?id=0OQZ8LUJYCAC&pg=PT25)
  • "lead climbing" vs "top roping", depends on the belay system
  • "rock climbing" vs "ice climbing" vs "mixed climbing", depends on the terrain
  • "sport climbing" vs "trad climbing", depends on anchors
  • "slab climbing", "crack climbing", "face climbing" are not "types" but "techniques" that a climber can use in many different types of climbing (http://books.google.it/books?id=mdQcBNKK1iIC&pg=PA56)
  • and so on

So, climbing has many classifications, while a flat list doesn't highlight this organization.--Rotpunkt (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought I had added some depth to this section, but apparently misremember. This is how I was going to reorganize the section:
  • Aid climbing
  • Free climbing
  • Bouldering
  • Solo climbing
  • Deep-water soloing
  • Free soloing
  • Roped solo climbing
  • Lead climbing
  • Sport climbing
  • Traditional climbing
  • Top rope climbing
These sections would be removed to elsewhere in the article.
  • Simul climbing
  • Indoor climbing
Rock/ice/mixed isn't dealt with in this section. This is an article on rock climbing; there are others on ice or mixed. Slab/crack/face similarly isn't dealt with in this section. Not dealt with in the article yet, but should be. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Lead climbing" and "top roping" aren't subcategories of "free climbing". You can be a "lead climber" on a route with an aid move.
  • "Sport climbing" and "traditional climbing" aren't subcategories of "lead climbing". They are related to the anchors, not to the be lead or second in the party.
  • "Solo climbing" is not a subcategory of "free climbing". You can solo climb an aid route.
All these terms are not in a gerarchical scheme. The article should follow the organization made by two or more rock climbing books. --Rotpunkt (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Top roping an aid route doesn't make sense, so in essence, all aid routes are lead. Sport/trad isn't about the anchors; it's about the protection used in lead climbing: at least in the US. And I can find at least 2 sources to back that up. Solo isn't directly under free. Yes you can solo aid, but we can address that in the aid section. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Sport/trad is about the types of anchors (permanent anchors in sport climbing, removable protection for trad). Obviously the anchors are used for protection. May be in italian we use "permanent anchors vs removable anchors", while in english it's "permanent anchors vs removable protection" (protection instead of anchors, when is removable). However we should find good sources and follow them. IMO your current gerarchical scheme is not correct. --Rotpunkt (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. I've never heard of anyone use the term anchor anywhere except as a term for the system of protection for anchoring to the cliff, usually at a belay station (for example at the top of the cliff when top-roping or if needed at the bottom while lead climbing). The gear placed while actually climbing between belays is called "protection". Even when it's in the rock, it's still "protection", and not "anchor" even though it effectively becomes that. That's all original research though as it's based on who I've climbed with. Even permanently installed sport bolts are called protection, not anchors. (Though usually, neither, just "bolts".) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
We have missed the point, call it "anchor" or "protection", no problem for me, I only said that "Sport climbing" and "traditional climbing" aren't subcategories of "lead climbing" (or show me a source). --Rotpunkt (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I never said they were. They are logical sub-sections of the lead climbing section though. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Ehm no, "Sport climbing" and "traditional climbing" are logical sub-section of "lead climbing" for you but not for me, for example. For this reason I asked you to follow a source. --Rotpunkt (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Kidd, Timothy W.; Hazelrigs, Jennifer (2009). Rock Climbing. Human Kinetics 10%. pp. 9–10. ISBN 9781450409001.. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Luckily I found the book on google-books. According to the authors the styles of rock climbing are: bouldering (pp. 6-7), top-rope climbing (p. 8), traditional lead climbing (p. 9-10), sport lead climbing (pp. 10-11). However this book doesn't deal with aid or solo climbing, so this schema is a bit incomplete. I would refactor the section like this (surely I will not modify anything before finding sources):

  • by type of protection
    • Sport climbing
    • Traditional climbing
  • by type of belaying
    • Lead climbing
    • Top roping
    • Solo climbing

and so on, without a hierarchical scheme.--Rotpunkt (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There are lists of type & equipment - why no locations? As it expands, it can be subdivided by continent, country, region, etc. as needed to keep it orgainized. Steve8394 (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Stability not balance

"However, rock climbing is generally differentiated by its sustained use of hands to support the climber's weight as well as to provide balance."

This sentence should end "... to provide stability."

Explanation: Balance is achieved by keeping the center of gravity in between the holds. Balance can be kept without hands and even standing on one foot. What the use of hands adds, next to possibly (though not necessarily) supporting the climbers weight, is stability. The difference matters for comprehension because the ability to maintain balance is elemental to climbing technique. 83.84.14.95 (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Autoblock

The article 'Autoblock' is so short, why don't we merge it into rock climbing under the section 'Climbing Techniques'. I think a disambiguation page would be appreciated, since Wikipedia has autoblock information about up addresses covered in WP:Autoblock DSCrowned (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Under vandalism, I threw up a couple of templates. First a {{cn}} for the upgrading of climbs at places such as yosemite. Second, a {{POV-statement}} for the obvious opinion before that stating that " Failing to properly design a new route at its grade is considered arrogant and very poor form". Since I have not been active on this area of the Wiki (nor active in climbing due to a major illness/paralysis from years ago), I will wait and allow those that actively edit on the climbing areas to fix. Cheers speednat (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Climbing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Climbing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Climbing (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 10:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Commercial aspects, professional climbers, media and sponsorship

It would be interesting to read something on the ever growing climbing industry and how brands sponsor many climbers so they can focus on climbing only, becoming professional rock climbers. In recent years, there has certainly been an increase of films and short videos produced that feature climbers on their ventures while showing the brands they use. This has most likely generated a lot more interest in the sport and lead to greater competition as climbers may be encouraged to pursue harder challenges (in order to creater headlines, which benefit brands and climbers). I do not have any sources or data on this interesting relationship but maybe somebody does. I think this is an important development in climbing that could be included in this article. Bohnenkraut11 (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sudharshna.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 September 2021 and 11 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dmd458. Peer reviewers: Nvm32, Kuroko19148.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

bolted trad vs sport climbing

Traditional bolted face climbing means the bolts were placed on lead and/or with hand drills. The bolts tend to be much farther apart then sport climbs. For example a trad bolted routes may have bolts from 15-75 feet apart. A sport route may have bolts from 3-10 feet apart, similar to a rock climbing gym.

There is not such distinction between "bolt" and "sport" climbing that I am aware of? 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism section

Though the contents of the section are important and get into the proper amount of detail. The title and opening lines presuppose guilt and a moral low ground to necessary parts of the sport. To put it in different terms, are hiking and biking trails also vandalism? Are bolts no longer vandalism when you have the permits the some land managers give to climbing developers?


Anyway, I don't want to be the one removing a pretty informative section, but I haven't come up with a good more neutral way to display the information just yet. Kiwikoi (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Am I in the minority of editors who would like to see more inline citations/sources?

I was rather surprised to see so many paragraphs lacking in-line citations to external, reliable, verifiable sources, given the broad nature of this topic. These would be very helpful to the reader (parent of keen climbers here, who is striving to learn more about the sport, starting, of course, with the Wikipedia page on rock climbing!)

I wonder if the paucity of references might be related to the number of folk editing this article tending to be first-time Wikipedians mainly interested in this one topic, who have not done much training in how to edit?

Sooo, herewith, the link to the excellent training modules here: [1]https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/training/editing-wikipedia

When I have time, I will add more references.

Dawnbazely (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rock_climbing/Archive_1&oldid=1245167232"