A Video from Clear Creek

For my spring break, I went all the way to Clear Creek Canyon to try a short problem called Rhino, a two move low start to a fun V1. It was primarily as training for Park season since it has a fairly steep approach and very small sharp crimps. The first session was on a day that was a bit warm, joining up with a crew from Boulder that was trying Echale. Echale is not the best warmup problem but despite its being described as "one of the worst rock climbs out there" it has shrugged off concerted efforts by some very good climbers suggesting it may be one of the hardest in the state. Its convenience, excellent movement and decent landing (dug out of the hill!) make it somewhat of a mystery as to why it hasn't been repeated more in the past seven years. Congratulations to Phil Schaal for his 4th ascent. For beta on this problem, check out the 2004 videos at woodsfamilyclimbs.com.

I went up the hill to scope out the problem and found it to appear pretty reasonable but the building heat forced a retreat with a split fingertip. Then the wildfires raging in the canyon preventing a return until this past Saturday. Cooler conditions prevailed though imminent rain forced some extra effort to get the problem done.

Two Opportunities: Alpinist Column and ClimbWeb.Net Meet

In the past week or so, I have been on the sidelines, writing-wise, focusing on doing some bouldering and painting and catching up with work. In the meantime, a couple of interesting developments have occurred. The first is that Alpinist Magazine has asked me to contribute a regular web-based column. I am very enthusiastic about this chance to write on the topic of climbing for such an excellent journal. Expect to see a piece out in the next month or so.

The other exciting news is an invitation to join up with other climbing writers and editors for a week in mid-May in North Wales for the annual ClimbWeb.Net meeting. This is being hosted by UKClimbing in the town of Llanberis, the heart of the climbing scene in North Wales, with a short stay possible in the Peak District as well.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to visit places I have not been to in many years. The climbing environment in the UK has always had a great appeal to me and I am looking forward very much to seeing some of these places again. The chance to meet and talk with peers in the small but intense world of international climbing media at the same time is even better.

Video from Capstan Session

For the past week I had been hoping to finish off a project on Capstan Rock, an endeavor not aided by the soul-sucking "controversy" of the previous posts. This was the excellent and rarely repeated Daydreamer Direct SDS, put up by the amazingly strong but unknown Xander Oxman. This is a series of difficult crimp moves along the right arete of the formation culminating with a long throw to the Just Right pocket and the finish. Though graded by Jonathan Siegrist at V9, it feels exponentially harder than the V9 given to the lower start to Just Right and is comparable to every V10 I have done, not just for Flag.

Sunday afternoon was breezy and cool, prime conditions for the small crimps on the problem and as I was settling in for another session, Dave Graham and crew pulled up and decided to try the SDS for Just Right. It was amazing to watch how quickly the moves started being put together for this problem and it was obvious that Jimmy Webb was going to do it. While for purists, the start off the shelf is not a true SDS, starting in the hole on the left is not going to add much to the problem, except an awkward squatting traverse. Jimmy started from the shelf and the undercling on the left which is where the business begins. In the video, you see him already having started. I had to sprint up to the camera to press "record." In my view, Jimmy's start will become standard. If the name is confusing, it has more to do with the difference between a crouch and a sit. Call it Direct Just Right ,per Chip's guide, I suppose.

This problem has had quite a reputation over the years including a description of Daniel Woods getting rebuffed by the crux throw. It is certainly one of the best lines on the mountain and I was psyched to see a proper straightforward send. Jimmy Webb is one of the most talented and under-assuming boulderers in the country. He had flashed a notorious V12, Burnout, earlier that afternoon, so taking a few tries to do what he proposed was V11 makes sense.

After he did JR, I got on Daydreamer Direct and had a burn getting fairly high but not past the crux. A few minutes later, another try was more successful, getting to the pocket but now pretty pumped. There was a stab to the edge over the lip and then a struggle to get over the lip and the problem was done.

Climbing Media 2011: A Response to Andrew Bisharat

In response to a post I made earlier this week, Andrew Bisharat, editor at Rock and Ice had this to say:

"This is exactly the reason why blogs are never going to replace actual content created by legitimate media sources. Your post is uninformed, poorly researched, completely made up off the top of your head, and makes sweeping generalizations that largely aren't true (and none of which are substantiated by any facts) just in order to make yourself sound as if you know what you're talking about.

Peter, do you even read any of the print journals that you're talking about? Do you follow any of these sites' online presence beyond an obviously cursory perusal of content? Are you fluent enough in French, German and Italian to comment about the content of the European sites? What content, exactly, is Deadpoint creating that in your opinion is so far exceeds the quality of what other websites are writing and creating?

You have no shortage of ways of contacting any of the editors at any of the publications that you bring up in this post, but you decide that your powers of deduction ought to be good enough to dissect online media landscape. Looking at numbers, presenting facts, asking This is the difference between journalist and a writer who has ethics to this field, and a blogger who spouts of hyper-intellectualized, ego-stroking fiction. I hope you realize that.

If you want to look at simple numbers, an easy search on www.alexa.com will show you that RockandIce.com is most popular, highest ranked website of any of the sites that you mention in the U.S., so it's completely erroneous for you to say that we have no significant web presence.

Of course, everything could be better--and I agree that we have a ways to go before our website meets the quality of our publication. It's something we're constantly working on, but good journalism is expensive. Opinions are cheap.


--Andrew Bisharat
abisharat@bigstonepub.com
Senior editor, Rock and Ice"

Well. To be honest I have probably more important things to consider, such as the fate of a country that legalizes "medical" marijuana and outlaws collective bargaining. But of course for a senior editor to take the trouble to smite a lowly blog is really a compliment in a way so a consideration of this bit of prose seems in order.

As I review the arguments actually stated in the piece, and not the ones invented by Andrew (those will emerge in due course) I note the following."...there is maybe one stand-alone web-based general climbing media outfit that is producing its own content and creating a distinctive brand." Nowhere in Andrew's comment is this central truth addressed or refuted. I stand by this statement and welcome suggestions for other companies I may have missed. I continue, "American print journals such as Climbing, Urban Climber, and Rock and Ice are far behind the Europeans in providing a significant and satisfying web presence." I am unable to see how Andrew's comment considers this argument on its merits either. Instead he cites a survey from Alexa.com, claiming that "RockandIce.com is most popular (sic), highest ranked website of any of the sites that you mention in the U.S." Note that I didn't say that R&I was unpopular or poorly ranked or anything of the sort, only that, in my view, it was, along with Climbing, et. al. "far behind the Europeans." This is a statement that can be argued over, not by citing statistics but by direct comparison with the top European websites, such as UKClimbing, Planet Mountain, etc., something Andrew doesn't bother to do.

I continue further by making a statement that has been supported by conversations with editors and even a comment that was posted from a former Climbing staffer, to the effect that editors and publishers see focusing on the print edition as a safer bet, since they can actually monetize it and not give expensive content away for free. This is a hypothesis that can be followed by trained monkeys and hardly requires contacting busy editors and wasting their time to confirm the obvious. Either way Andrew does not address this central point except to note that journalism is expensive, which is correct.

I continue ironically enough, to note that most blogs are not really worth reading over the long haul, being either industry mouthpieces or purely personal ventures that rarely ask interesting questions about the sport. The irony is that this echoes Andrew's premise that "blogs are never going to replace actual content created by legitimate media sources" though I would not presume to dictate what "legitimate" implies here. However I do not go on to expand upon how my own blog is clearly worth reading nor do I cite my readership numbers, mostly because they are so low as to be embarrassing.

So what is it exactly that Andrew has a problem with? Let's look at the first sentence. "Your post is uninformed, poorly researched, completely made up off the top of your head, and makes sweeping generalizations that largely aren't true (and none of which are substantiated by any facts) just in order to make yourself sound as if you know what you're talking about." I am not sure what exactly is uninformed here as Andrew doesn't bother to refute any actual points made in the piece nor cite research I could actually have done besides contact some editors to discover the obvious point that journalism is expensive. While I do compose extemporaneously, I fail to see what was made up off the top of my head. I also wonder how I can possibly write "sweeping generalizations" that not only "largely aren't true" but are not even "substantiated by any facts." That frankly takes a lot of work that I don't really have time for. But I digress.

Andrew is correct to question my bona fides. I don't actually read anything anymore in the world of climbing journalism. Wait, that's one of those sweeping generalizations unsubstantiated by facts. OK I admit that I do read climbing magazines and have done for many years. But then Andrew gets personal. "Do you follow any of these sites' online presence beyond an obviously cursory perusal of content? Are you fluent enough in French, German and Italian to comment about the content of the European sites?" My reply is "Does anyone do more than a cursory perusal of these sites?" And of course, my fluency in foreign languages is second to none, certainement, certo, though my command of echt deutsch is less than perfect, thanks for asking. What a silly point to try to score since European sites such as Planet Mountain or 8a.nu offer multiple language options, including English in an attempt to be truly global. I guess I will defer to Andrew's multi-lingual capacities on that one.

Then of course the reprimand, where Andrew the senior editor glares from under his green eyeshade at me, the cub reporter. Chomping down on his well-chewed stogie, he barks, "Kid, you have no shortage of ways of contacting any of the editors at any of the publications that you bring up in this post, but you decide that your powers of deduction ought to be good enough to dissect online media landscape."

Hilarious stuff to be sure, to stand corrected by the author of an "article" complaining about trustfunding dirt-baggers in a recent issue of the mag. No stereotypes or generalization there, of course. Just good old pound the pavement, shoe leather journalism, the way grandpa used to do it. Yessir "Looking at numbers, presenting facts, asking This is the difference between journalist and a writer who has ethics to this field, and a blogger who spouts of hyper-intellectualized, ego-stroking fiction. I hope you realize that." Wait what was that again?

"Looking at numbers, presenting facts, asking This is the difference between journalist and a writer who has ethics to this field, and a blogger who spouts of hyper-intellectualized, ego-stroking fiction. I hope you realize that."

OK, maybe the saliva was covering over the screen so much at this point that it was getting hard to see, but honestly Andrew, proofread your work, however modest the venue. You're a senior editor at Rock and Ice fur chrissakes. And can you explain the tortured syntax of "asking This is the difference between journalist and a writer who has ethics to this field?" What field are we talking about here? How can I have ethics to it? Am I the "blogger who spouts of hyper-intellectualized, ego-stroking fiction?" Do you mean I reek of it? Spout off? Are we talking meta-fiction here?

Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to write this Andrew. One issue as I see it is that you are paid a salary to write about climbing but you have shown that maybe your criticism of my work could use some critique itself. In fact I have been editing your comments for free (no gratitude expected of course) and hopefully showing what few readers I have, that yes I have integrity and no I am not as amateurish as you would like to believe. My opinion may be cheap as you say, but it's also free, free of slapdash personal attacks and sloppy writing.

The Climbing Media Survey 2011

Periodically, over the past four years I have been writing this blog, I have surveyed the state of climbing media, especially in the digital realm. In 2011, the story is an unsurprising one, revolving primarily around conformity and consolidation, trends that have been building over the past few years, especially in the US.

Looking over the media landscape in the US, it is striking to see that there is maybe one stand-alone web-based general climbing media outfit that is producing its own content and creating a distinctive brand. This is of course Deadpoint Magazine but its primary focus on sport climbing and bouldering means that a significant chunk (some would argue THE significant chunk) of the climbing scene is non-existent as far as that company is concerned. Compare this to the numerous European and English sites producing top-quality articles, news items, and other interactive features across the entire range of the climbing experience. Planet Mountain and UKClimbing are only two that work in this vein. Kairn, a French website,Klettern and Pareti, an Italian example, are some other significant sites, some web-only, some in partnership with print titles.

American print journals such as Climbing, Urban Climber, and Rock and Ice are far behind the Europeans in providing a significant and satisfying web presence. Without interviewing the actual editors, I can't say for sure why this is, but the main reasons can't be too hard to diagnose. The view appears to be that value is perceived primarily by consumers in the print edition and that efforts to have a significant independent web presence are throwing real money away to provide free content.

But turning to the web itself, what is happening? Well the landscape is increasingly stratified into several distinct layers. There are sites linked with manufacturers such as Black Diamond and Patagonia that consistently produce high-quality media, most of it with the explicit aim of promoting the brand. Then there are climber sites and blogs, the vast majority of which are infrequently updated and rarely worth reading, except for some occasional news value. There are the climber forums such as Super Topo. There is of course the Climbing Narc, whose mastery of the art of aggregation has garnered an enthusiastic following. And what else? Well not much really.

An endless diet of increasingly trivial news updates, training tips, equipment reviews and video clips make up the landscape of climbing media now. Perhaps it was ever thus but my feeling is that in the increasingly bland and consumerist landscape of the web in particular, something of great value is being lost. I am thinking primarily of individuality, real passion for the intrinsic values of the sport and the desire to ask hard questions about the assumptions and values we bring to it. Currently I see a celebration of surface, a pursuit of meaningless abstractions that climbers fantasize about capitalizing on, especially in terms of becoming a "pro" climber.

Real journalism asks real questions of the system, even aggravating ones, questions that affect people and the world we live in. I am wondering how many of these questions are being swept under the rug at this point in favor of a consumerist consensus that emphasizes a constant news cycle propelled by numbers, names and company brands. Are we afraid of what answers these questions might produce?

Climbing, The Internet and Social Networking

About a year ago I proposed that 8a.nu needs to rethink itself, an argument that I still stand behind. The world of human interaction on the internet has changed radically in the past two or three years, a process aided primarily by the arrival of a new generation of smartphones and the now ubiquitous Facebook. The degree of connectivity available to people is unnerving at times, especially given the GPS function in iPhones, etc. It is possible via Foursquare, Twitter, and Facebook(though you may regret it later) to broadcast to the world at large what you are doing where and with whom.

In the world of climbing, 8a.nu has rapidly built up an extensive membership that regularly updates ascents. With almost 35,000 members and over 1.5 million ascents logged, it has remained the go-to source for news in the world of sport-climbing and bouldering. Recently however some efforts to compete with 8a.nu for eyeballs have emerged. Examples include 27 Crags, Climbfind, an online partner finder,and Sendage, a site developed by Jamie Chong, that is intended to be a place to assemble and cross off ticklists. It has the feature or problem, depending on your viewpoint, of being built on top of Facebook. It also offers to import, a la Gmail from Hotmail, all your info in your 8a account.

Looking over these efforts, it is clear that they have a certain amount of momentum behind them. Yet I do not see the so-called "killer app" emerging from them. The attraction of 8a is precisely what many of its detractors complain about and that is the point system and ranking. This is what attracts, in part at least, the many top climbers who post there, and this in turn attracts many viewers. With this constant stream of new ascents, 8a.nu has a great source of news and other features that bring back visitors again and again. Sure the design is antediluvian and the functionality idiosyncratic but it remains an invaluable resource.

The Climbing Narc has written recently about Sendage, and asked, "This all begs the question in my mind if it is even possible for a site to catch on in the log book space given the head start that 8a.nu enjoys." The question that is truly begged, i.e. omitted or left unsaid, is whether any similar website can find a new wrinkle on the basic premise that 8a.nu is founded upon, that of ranking and competition. Looking over Sendage, for example, I don't see this happening. The same for 27 Crags. Both sites are, well, small. They don't appear to allow the visitor a constantly open window into the world of high-end climbing, which is a major draw for 8a.nu. This may change but I don't see the potential avenues for this occurring built into either site.

The competition is not for eyeballs or headspace but more for time spent by its users and visitors, and of course free content, content that draws advertising dollars. Maybe the problem with climbers is that they really would prefer to go climbing and not invest too much more time than necessary writing about it on the internet.

It's obvious that 8a needs an overhaul but its basic proposition to the user remains the most attractive of the options out there. Unlike MySpace, it's not likely to be going away anytime unless something really amazing comes along.

In an upcoming follow-up post, I will discuss the current state of online media in climbing in general.