0
0.00

FREE shipping for the island of Ireland

Buy two or more products and get €10 off

Judging the quality of boulder problems

DRAFT VERSION

Many years ago I had the idea to make bouldering Top Trumps, featuring about 50 of the world’s most famous boulder problems, choosing a few categories and then rating each of them out of ten. I mocked them up (see above), but never got around to printing them.

They popped into my head yesterday as I was listening to a podcast called Testpiece Climbing, a guest called Eric Jerome was talking about his quest to climb the 100 best problems in the US and obviously there was plenty of discussion about how he came up with the list. It’s worth a listen, but in summary he came up with six criteria and judging a problem by awarding a star for each criteria it meets. To be honest I think this is a pretty unrefined approach.

I think the reason this idea of trying to quantify quality caught my interest was because I’m in the process of updating the bouldering guide, and I have been working on the Glendo chapter for the last while. I’m taking a reasonably definitive approach, which is to say I’m including most problems, but not every single one. If something is very bad then it isn’t going in or just gets a passing mention. So obviously problem quality has been on my mind.

The other issue with including lots of problems is that the better ones can get a bit lost among the mediocre. Over the years people has suggested that I should use a star system and many other bouldering guides do. I have resisted the idea, mostly for two practical reasons – quality is pretty subjective (or is it?) and it might discourage people from visiting more esoteric areas and focus them on the already popular ones.

Rating systems used by other guides

Simon Panton‘s iconic North Wales Bouldering, the first edition anyway, uses a simple three star system – a three start problem is top class, a two star is exceptional and a one star problem is good. He also notes that he hopes that the star system will draw people away from the most popular (easily accessed) areas to more remote, quieter areas with worthwhile problems.

The Vertebrate Publishing’s beautiful 2011 Peak Bouldering guide uses a two star system – a grey star indicating a “very good or minor classic problem. Worth seeking out” and a black start for “A superb or classic problem. One of the best in the area if not the country“.

The Supertopo Yosemite Valley Bouldering guide uses a four star system, with a global outlook ie. their ratings aren’t relative to that specific area but the entire world, a four star problem should be one of the best in the world, a zero star problem isn’t worth doing.

Finally the 5+6 and 7+8 guides to Fontainebleau use a two star system. A star means a problem is one of the most outstanding in that area, a bold star means it is of the most outstanding in Font.

This is a just from a quick look through some of the guidebooks on the shelf that are within reach, there are surely more systems out there.

What’s the goal?

The goal of a rating system is to help boulderers choose where to go and what to do, whether they are first time visitors trying to decide on where to visit on a roadtrip or locals looking to find a new project.

For me a system that only identifies the world-class problems isn’t that useful. It isn’t granular enough.  A system that rates a problem’s quality relative to that area has its merits, but it seems to assume that the relative quality of the area is known. For example how does a “best in area” problem in Glendalough (a great area) compare to one in Stonecutter’s Glen (a shite area)?

How might it all work?

An extensive system would rate each problem on a number of criteria and sum these ratings to give an overall value for quality.

Having a number of criteria might averages out some of the more subjective aspects. There is a question about how the criteria are weighted, as it would be very reasonable to argue that some are more important than others, but I will come back to that.

Criteria

So what criteria should be used to evaluate a problem? 

Eric Jerome‘s six criteria are: rock, line, start, landing, height, setting. He omits movement as he feels it’s too objective which seems more than a little strange to me. Check out his list here.

Here are my suggestions, in no particular order, I will come back to my thoughts on which are most important.

Line

Factors include: is it a ‘nice’ height? Is the start obvious? It it a sit, standing or jump start? Is it obvious where the the boulder goes? Is the line convoluted (that could be seen as either a good thing or a bad thing)? Does the problem top out? Is it on freestanding boulder or a crag? Does it follow a line of least resistance or does it seek out a specific level of difficulty? It is contrived?  Can you break the beta? Is it
escape-able? Is it the easiest way to the top of the boulder? This is rarely the case, but significant. Is the climbing restricted by it’s surroundings i.e, are there any rocks or trees etc that get in the way of the moves?

Another major (very subjective) factor is the visual aesthetics -how it fits into its immediate surroundings, is it a king line, does it start out, is it inspiring?

How does height fit in? Lowballs are generally not looked on favorably. I define a lowball as a problem that only has a sit start, it would be pointless, trivial or impossible to do it as a stand start. While climbing higher problems can be very memorable and rewarding they aren’t for everyone. Really tall problems blur the line between bouldering and soloing.

Another factor particularly relevant to higher problems or those with bad landings is where the difficult moves are. It’s not unusual to have a problem with a relatively hard start and an significantly easier, but highball, finish. The problem is high but the likelihood of a climber falling on the dangerous section is unlikely.

In some scenarios having the hardest move at the end could be considered climatic, but it could also be seen as a flaw.

Landing

This can range from awful to perfect. An awful landing being one that is either impossible or totally impractical to make safe. For example a landing zone that is filled with a jumble of huge rocks or one that drops away steeply. A perfect landing is obviously flat and even and soft ie, grass or sand as opposed to rock.

Movement

Possibly one of the most subjective criteria and the one that requires the evaluator to have tried the problem. Different climbers have different preferences in terms of movement, some like technical delicate moves while others prefer dynamic, physical climbing so this is possibly the criteria that could create the most discussion, but I think most climbers are able to look at things somewhat objectively. 

Is it morpho? Is the sequence/solution obvious? If it is very obvious or very obscure then I think that is a good thing.

Holds and Rock

The shape, texture and arrangement of the holds on a problem are a massive factor in how enjoyable it is to climb. While what makes a good hold is debatable, it seems obvious that a bad hold is one that is sharp, friable/loose, painful/uncomfortable, awkward, polished, tweaky or just ugly. The extent to which a single good or bad holds affects how it is rated is up for debate. A good problem can probably have a bad hold or two, but a great one can’t maybe? Another factor is how critical the hold is to the sequence. This makes me think of that classic ad from Pusher from a long time back (see below).

Rock quality is a critical factor, it should be clean and solid for starters. A degree of roughness may be seen as desirable to most, but I also think that very smooth rock can be very engaging to climb on, for example granite that has been smoothed by water (see Ticino or Inishowen).  Lets just say that the texture should be good, what is meant but good being left open to interpretation.

Setting

An the context of the climb is definitely a factor in that a great problem in a shitty setting can’t be considered truly great and on the other hand a problem in a beautiful setting for example an wildflower meadow beside a babbling brook with snow-capped mountains in the distance certainly to elevate stay experience of climbing the problem and then quality of the problem.

This is somewhat a area specific property, most problems in the same area would score similarly.

What hasn’t been included?

Height hasn’t got it own category, I feel that this aspect would be included in the line criteria. Not to say that higher is always better. There are many one-move  problems that are possibly world-class, off the top of my head the two big dynos in Font – Rainbow Rocket and Hale Bopp – are good examples.

Grade also hasn’t been mentioned. I think there is a tendency to conflate quality with difficulty. I don’t think this is intrinsic, the difference between a problem being 6b and 8b could be just that each hold is an inch deeper or a few degrees more incut. The movement, line etc would be the exact same.

Accessibility or convenience haven’t been considered.  For me a problem being roadside versus an hour’s walk from the car doesn’t make it better. Once could factor this in when considering the setting I suppose.

Popularity. Is there a correlation between popularity and quality? Not a strong one I think, there certainly is a link between convenience, grade and popularity. And the reality is that it’s hard – but not entirely impossible – to accurately evaluate the quality of a climb you haven’t attempted so high-quality popular climbs then to get boosted while esoteric climbs of a similar quality tend to get overlooked.

Conditions. Is the problem in a very damp location, does it seep, does it get too much shade or too much sun? Is it accessible year-round?

Should the history of a problem be a factor, I think a large part of the reason Marie Rose gets so much attention is due to its status as the first 6a in the forest.

Weighting the criteria

So say you have selected a number of criteria, given them a scale, say 0 to 5. You then evaluate problems against this and add the scores up. In effect you are giving each criteria an equal weight, but is this the best approach? For me setting and landing aren’t as crucial as the other three. Less than perfect landings can be easily managed nowadays with loads of pads or even some patioing. The setting is more a bonus aspect and ultimately doesn’t effect the act of climbing. Maybe they should be weighted less.

Ratings

In terms of the scale, how granular should it be? 0,1,2 is a little too coarse while 1-10 seems too broad and creates a false sense of accuracy. I think 1-5 is ideal for the three most important criteria (line, movement, rock), giving something like this:
  1. Awful
  2. Bad
  3. OK
  4. Good
  5. Excellent
  With a 1-3 scale for the other two criteria (setting, landing):
  1. Bad
  2. OK
  3. Good

Applying the criteria

In the 2nd edition of the bouldering guide I suggested that Split Arete in Polldoo Glen in Donegal might be the best problem in Ireland. So looking at it through the prisim of the five criteria:

Line 5/5

I think the photo speak for itself. Starkly obvious arete feature which is basically the only hold. The arete improves slightly towards the end with a juggy topout. Tall but not scary.

Movement 4/5

Clear start hold. delicate laybacking up the slopey arete. As a con you could say the moves are quite repetitive. 4/5

Holds and Rock 4/5

Very clean, beautiful rough, but not too rough, pink granite. Solid. Comfortable.

Setting 3/3

Really nice spot on a patch of raised ground in a remote valley, with craggy mountains in the background and a stream below. Hard to fault in an Irish context.

Landing 3/3

Perfect, flat grass.

Giving a total of 19/21

Spots of Time

Fresh off the press is a video of Will Bosi doing the second ascent of Spots of Time, a 9a+ problem in the Lake District, and one of the hardest problems in the world.

Shortly after doing the ascent, flushed with success, he speaks to the camera. He talks about how great the problem is, saying it is one of the best hard boulders in the world, the factors he mentions are – location (setting), line, moves, holds.