Monday, November 19, 2007

Further Thoughts on Trice

Climbing Magazine has published its account of the repeat of Trice. Dougald MacDonald pointed out that neither Carlo nor Jamie used the sequence that Holloway used but that Holloway's height made that irrelevant. Holloway's height had nothing to do with it. Not to beat a dead horse here but the fact is that the difficulty of the problem resided almost exclusively in staying on the two bad handholds despite a lousy sloping foothold for the left. To use the high left foot, which is small but very positive, is to negate that challenge and create a new totally static variation. For a longer problem, Automator in RMNP, for example, changing beta doesn't particularly matter. For a two or three move problem it creates a different problem altogether.

I applaud Carlo's initiative in choosing to try the old sequence as it was first done. The quibbling about the starting holds is meaningless in the context of the real crux. If Carlo doesn't get it, I nominate Paul R as most likely to actually repeat Trice as Holloway did it.


Sue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dropknee said...

Hey Peter! I just wanted to comment by humble opinion. I think repeating it exactly the way Holloway did it is perhaps "beating a dead horse." He is 6'4, ya know?

We tend hold onto his legend a little too tight, and when speaking to Jim, he can't even really remember his beta, nor does he really care, and thus speculation becomes a book that will never be closed.

I think that perhaps all the knit-picky rules for his problems are hindrering their appreciation. It isn't about Jim, it about the problems. "The Big Three." Start on some holds and get to the top, appreciate the history and how it was first done, but try your best to solve it.

Eventually most problems become: "Did you do it this way, or that way? This works for me, try it like this!"

With so many rules, it will come down to having to open hand crimp the pocket to be valid.

Cheers! -Andy

Jamie Emerson said...

Peter, lets not forget what you wrote previously on your blog "Trice is not going to see any sequences with heel-hooks out left or toe-hooks out right. They don't exist. Anyone is welcome to try to find them."
So I go up, figure out a new sequence (which you challenged anyone to do, and then on two separate occasions you feel the need to tell me I haven't done it. Its a little disappointing that you seem to care more about being right on this issue than being supportive of a friend.
People interperate the rock in differents way. As an art history teacher I think you would see value with the idea that three different people climbed the same section of rock three different ways.
It's certainly possible that Holloway was too tall to use our sequence. Holloway found his own way and so did I.

chuffer said...

Hey Peter and all the other readers who are still interested. There probably aren't that many, but here goes:

I suspect Paul and Ty may do it as well. It will be interesting to see what solution they come up with and decide to use. Paul tried the perching toe. That sequence does not make the problem trivial. And to call it static is incorrect. It involves a low-percentage deadpoint match.

Anyway, my understanding is that it was never Jim's intent to suggest that to repeat his problem, aspiring boulderers had to apply the rules of Twister and off-route the feet he did not use. To some extent, I blame that on how problem descriptions were laid out in a couple of the more popular guidebooks that discuss Trice.

In my opinion, interest in Trice will be greater because the rules are pretty simple ...
1. It starts on obvious well-defined holds.
2. You have to go into the pocket with your RH (and if you go into the pocket with your LH, you will be attempting AKR).
3. Get to the top.

Pretty simple. Off-routing all other foot beta than what Jim did almost turns the problem into the contrivance of all-time.

Did Holloway accomplish climbing out the bulge a bit differently? Yes. Should we repect that? Yes. Should people be inspired to try it Holloway's way? Yes. Should we off-route different foot sequences? Good grief, I certainly hope not.

FINAL THOUGHT: Mike Feinberg was trying it without the higher foothold. He was hitting the rail within a few tries on his 2nd day on the problem and said he thought it was quite a bit easier than perching on the small high toe. He had a good chance of doing it had he not moved back east. Someone else will repeat this problem via this method when they properly dedicate themselves to this method. Paul? Ty?

sock hands said...