Psicobloc the Future? Why I am not Drinking the Chlorine (yet)

Being off in the hinterlands of coastal Maine last week and without access to the Internet, I missed the big event in Park City that was hyped up across the Internet as the future of comp climbing. This was the Psicobloc comp, where organizers had set up a 50 foot wall over a pool normally used for freestyle skiing training, arranged so that competitors could climb side by side on identical routes. Scheduled to coincide with the OR tradeshow, the event was regarded by many as a great success and many commented that it could point to a future for climbing comps as mainstream entertainment, taking the sport to the "next level". I think this feeling was particularly strong given the disappointment of not being selected for Olympic inclusion in 2020.

Now anyone reading this blog knows that I have a contrarian disposition about a lot of things and those of you who need more "awesome" should know better than to read my posts anyway. And there's no doubt that within its own context and setting, the comp was a success. Chris Sharma put the weight of his reputation behind the event and a really good roster of talent showed up. But here's my take on the future of this format: it is probably not going to work as "the future of competition climbing"

Anyone still left reading? OK, then. I have no animus or axes to grind here, only a few basic points for athletes, organizers and spectators to consider. Some of them are the same problems with comp climbing in general, some are specific to DWS events.

1. Climbing is boring to watch. It turns out it is basically just as boring to watch it over a pool of water. In the highlight reel I saw, there was virtually no attention paid to the routes themselves and no wonder. Despite the world-class setter Dani Andrada and the A-list athletes, the fact remained that they were slowly climbing plastic blobs over a pool. Apparently the routes were fairly hard but the average spectator would not have a clue. From a TV standpoint this is a major hurdle to overcome.

2. Climbers falling into water is boring to watch. After the first few plunges, it seemed to me no more or less interesting than watching boulderers hit the mat or fall on a rope. There was no seriously engaging aspect of the falls that I could see anyone outside the sport taking a meaningful interest in. As opposed to competitive diving or cliff diving, DWS falls are extrinsic to the event, being random and uncontrolled by the athlete.

3. Format. The competition format made no sense since there was no real rationale for pairing off particular climbers against one another. The visuals were slightly more interesting but in terms of the actual competition, it really didn't matter. Apparently time was a tiebreaker in case both climbers topped out, which made no sense to me. Furthermore there was at least one close call involving a climber almost landing on top of another. Obviously this doesn't have to stay in place for the future but it is a problem regardless. How do we know who is winning?

4. Venue. How many locales are going to be able to handle a big wall over a sufficiently deep pool? There were questions as to whether the pool was actually deep enough and I heard that at least one climber hit the bottom. Regardless of safety concerns, psicobloc raises the bar on venue options, limiting the possible places for comps and increasing the expense overall since they will require installation of temporary walls.

5. Competitor safety. This was completely passed over in the lead up to the event but if we're talking "the future" then it needs to be discussed. Falling into water at 40 feet in a haphazard unplanned way is a potentially very dangerous activity with injuries like spinal compaction, concussion, etc a real possibility. The past practice in climbing competitions has been to minimize danger to the participants. DWS events cannot eliminate the possibility of life-threatening/altering injuries occurring to participants to the degree that traditional events can. Going forward, I can see climbers giving the event a pass for precisely this reason, setting aside the fact that for many the sensation of hitting the water hard from 40 feet up is simply not fun. Falling into water is part of deep-water soloing but not essential to the sport of climbing.

I appreciate that everyone got excited about the possibilities of this kind of event but from a mainstream sports standpoint, I don't see it going much farther. Maybe time will prove me wrong but I think the points raised above deserve serious consideration. Justin Roth in his thoughtful analysis of the comp, raised the specter of Snowbird, a marquee event that in 1988 represented for many the promise of a new era. Sadly the Snowbird competitions ultimately proved a financial disaster for their organizer Jeff Lowe and the story has remained much the same afterwards, at least for adult events.

I cannot predict the future of climbing competitions with any certainty but I do feel that until leaders in the sport come up with a coherent consistent vision of what achievement in the sport is and how to present it, we will be in a perpetual experimental mode, throwing stuff up on the wall to see what sticks, to coin a phrase. Part of that process has got to include media that is serious about reporting and analyzing all these developments, the way that mainstream sports reporting (at its best) does all the time. I wonder if climbing will become a mainstream sport only when its events and personalities get mainstream treatment. But that's a post for another day...

Head Games

About two and a half weeks ago something extraordinary happened, extraordinarily bad to be precise.  I fell off a boulder (last move of Secret Splendor, which is about 6 feet tall), which is nothing new. However this time I bounced off the pads at the base and hit the back of my head on a rock. Hard. Hard, like I imagine getting hit by a 2x4 would be. Stunned and a bit in shock, I sat there recuperating from the initial force of the hit and trying to figure out what to do next. Sacrificing a t-shirt to stop the bleeding a bit, I realized that although the impact had been substantial, I knew what day it was, who the people were around me and where I was. So far so good. Nothing else seemed to have been seriously damaged in the fall. Dilation of the pupils: OK. No vomiting, dizziness, or any apparent skull fracture. Clearly time to get out of there.

The scene in the ER a few hours later

I packed up my stuff and walked out with the friend I came up with. Occasional handfuls of snow helped keep the bleeding in check and after a leisurely hike down to Bear Lake and drive home, it was off to the ER for a cleaning and six staples in my scalp. The next day I took it easy and the day after of course I went climbing at the Boulder Rock Club (where I nearly had a rerun of the same accident, bouncing off a pad). Needless to say, it wasn't great times but I felt (for no good reason) that I ought to get back out there so to speak. Trail running was certainly done with even more caution than usual

A few more indoor sessions were followed by a day at Evans Area A the day before the staples came out. The truth is that, for me anyway I became much more aware of the potential for harm outdoors and it will probably be at least a month or more before I am back at the level of confidence I had before I fell. In a way this is a good thing as it should help keep me safer and more careful about potential problems with landings. In another way, it's a bad thing as what should have been a safe fall wound up being a potentially dangerous/lethal fall and I will be second-guessing these situations for a long time to come.

Should I have had a spotter? Probably, though I have fallen off that move solo many times before. Should I have worn a helmet? The outcome says it might not have been a bad idea and having helped take a well-known bouldering author to the ER long ago in a similar fall situation, I had been warned that this kind of accident could happen. That boulderer is well known today because of his helmet use while bouldering.

There is a great article on helmet use and design in the current issue of Climbing that emphasizes the risks that climbing poses to the head and more specifically the brain. There is increasing awareness with articles like this and films like The Crash Reel that there is a price to be paid eventually for repeated blows to the head. In the world of climbing, there has been relatively little attention paid to the affects of low-grade head and body impacts so far, especially in regard to bouldering. The Climbing article mentions that Metolius had plans for a bouldering helmet but that idea will have a lot of resistance to overcome from the bouldering world.

Alexander Huber solo on the Brandler-Hasse V 5.12a
(http://ianalfarras9.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/escalada-libre/)

For my part, I regard thorough padding of a problem to be part of the protective gear in the sport, much like a helmet for trad climbing or alpinism, making helmet use redundant, especially if you have a good spotter. This time I misused the gear, fortunately without too serious a consequence, as far as I know. I work primarily with my brain and have a vested interest in keeping it as coherent as I can. I know that for any serious climbing I may do in the future where potential for head-impact is genuine, I will be wearing a helmet. Frankly I am surprised that some of the serious highball problems being done these days don't involve helmet use. And if children are bouldering on anything at all serious, I strongly recommend considering it. But regardless of fashion or past practice, understand that if it happened to me, it can happen to you, only you might not be as lucky. Be safe out there!

Youth and Risk: A Parent's Perspective

The climbing world has only begun to react to the tragic news of the death of 12-year old Tito Traversa following a groundfall at Orpierre in the south of France. While the exact details remain unclear as of this writing, it appears that most of his quickdraws were improperly set up and failed upon being weighted when he lowered off a warmup climb. Regardless of the emotional impact of the accident, there seems no doubt that a re-examination of the use of carabiner-securing devices like the Petzl String will be undertaken. (For what it's worth, my suggestion is only to sell them permanently sewn into dogbone-style draws so that they cannot be installed improperly or put on open slings where they can be flipped and fail completely.)

 The deeper issue is that of how much responsibility young climbers can or should assume upon themselves when climbing. Given that many climbers believe in self-reliance and personal decision making, free of outside authority or supervision, it seems natural to blame the accident on "operator error" and similar to dozens of similar incidents that happen every year, some fatal, most not. However given the age of the victim and the preventable nature of the accident, I am not comfortable with that view.

 I think that there is a different audience for this sad event and that is the parents of young climbers. I am not going to presume to speculate on the private grief and sorrow of Tito's parents and I would never call into question their judgment with their son's pursuit of climbing. Tito had just completed his fourth 5.14 and you don't get there without safe climbing practices and careful supervision. But his death puts us in very new territory for the sport where parents especially have to ask what they can do to respect their children's desire to climb while being careful to acknowledge that they are not responsible independent adults and should not be treated as such. This is a place that young childless climbers simply cannot comprehend until they have children of their own and have dedicated their lives to the all-consuming task of rearing healthy happy children themselves. To lose one's child at any age must be unbearable and there is no consolation or easing of that grief that I can think would be adequate to the task.

 In the current celebration of young climbers' recent athletic feats is often lost any discussion of a less obvious kind of skill, one that was long ago described by Pat Ament as being "rockwise." This phrase describes a state of mind that is wary, cautious and deeply aware of the constantly changing environment of climbing, be it indoors or outdoors. If there is one problem with the attitude toward modern sport climbing and bouldering, it is the dismissal of risk as merely perception, that we can handle dangerous situations simply by rationalizing our fears and developing our mental and physical strengths. There is some merit in this approach but I wonder if it would be wise also to emphasize an outlook that recognizes hazard not merely in regard to procedures or technical skills but also in appraising routes, partner behavior, belaying strategies, and so on.

 Young climbers are very adept at mastering closed systems, quickly learning the rules for success in defined games such as sport climbing, games set up by teachers, parents, or mentors. But when things are open-ended or suddenly the rules change, children are still ill-equipped to handle them, especially when they really do not understand in a meaningful sense the real and permanent consequences of mistakes in climbing. Even grownups have a hard time mastering this kind of awareness as the steady stream of climbing accident reports makes clear. Climbing is simply not a safe sport in the sense that tennis or running or swimming are. In climbing, we are much more vulnerable than we realize, finding ourselves, even on sport routes, in lethal situations in a matter of seconds where we thought ourselves secure. Climbers typically deal with this through a combination of denial, black humor, and bad analogies (such as "climbing is safer than driving") and other coping mechanisms, mechanisms that, if we have any sense of propriety, have no place in the minds of young people.

 So this is new territory for everyone. As someone who started climbing independently around Tito's age, who had numerous close calls as developing as a climber, and who, even now, has to acknowledge failure at this (I'll discuss my recent head injury while bouldering very soon) I can speak to the difficulty of this situation. As an educator and youth coach I am aware how difficult the process of education and awareness really is. The difficulty however is only matched by the serious implications of failure if the message doesn't get through. If there is a positive outcome from this extraordinary loss it is through inspiring all of us to look clearly realistically and soberly at the risks of climbing and how our children are taught to understand and handle them.

Park Life Summer 2013

The snow in Chaos that persisted into June has very quickly melted away bringing with it an influx of boulderers from all over. Access during the week is still difficult with the road being closed from Moraine Park after 9 am until 4 pm. However with a recent onset of summer heat, this coincides well with feasible climbing times anyway. I have tried both early morning and late afternoon in my attempts on Element of Surprise and have not settled on which one is better. I am certainly getting fitter  with repeated hikes up there.

May 17 on Element of Surprise

Among the more interesting treks up there was in early June with Ronnie Dickson, a very strong amputee climber who wanted to try Tommy's Arete. The hike up was much more epic than the actual boulder problem and the hike down had its moments as well, since the trail was fully covered in steep snow. Ronnie also did Pinch Overhang and Germ Free Adolescence on his visit as well as winning the Go Pro Games paraclimbing event in Vail.  Very impressive climbing given the commiting and difficult nature of those problems

Ronnie Dickson finishing up Tommy's Arete V7

RMNP has not been on the elite circuit much recently with the exception of attempts on Hypnotized Minds.With the summer warmth coming on, many have moved on to other regions such as Australia or South Africa. Shauna Coxsey, top boulderer from Great Britain, however recently broke a significant barrier for UK women with her first female ascent of the iconic problem Nuthin but Sunshine. This problem has always stood as a landmark ascent for the Park and for many male boulderers marks their entry into the V13 grade. It's great to see women succeeding in this realm and I can speak from personal experience of how hard this problem is. Check out the video of Shauna by Cameron Maier here and speaking of South Africa, this is a great one to watch also.

That's it for now. Stay cool and try hard!

I Miss Urban Climber

There, I said it. I miss Urban Climber. It's been about a year since that much-maligned magazine was put to sleep and I hate to say it, but I wish it was back, or at least something like it. I subscribe to all the other major US publications and while they all have their good points, they all have something in common: they feel too d**n serious, or at least earnest. The stories, the graphics, even the ads are all too often about the earnest (and expensive) seriousness of it all. Contrasty, undersaturated photos of gritty climbers in "exotic" sponsor-friendly locations are staples along with reminiscences of epic near-misses in epic conditions on epic new Piolet D'or-worthy routes. Or there will be wholesome, well-meaning, family-friendly pieces about the camaraderie of it all, the nature and the love and whatnot. Which is true, but also kind of boring after a while. At this point, we seem to have lost the notion, what with the uplift and the inspiration, the festivals and the bright green shirts in the flashlit photos, that climbing is actually a pretty ridiculous sport (and that the 80-year old man who climbed Everest took a helicopter from Camp 2 to get back down-DAB). Seriously people, working toward our goals, playing hard and making a difference in the community is all well and good but does no one think it all sounds a bit earnest, a bit, well, corporate? Have we really forgotten just how useless and silly (and downright dangerous) rock climbing actually is? A close escape that was really, almost getting into the Olympics.

Urban Climber, as some noted in its heyday, was an oxymoron, a magazine that tried to inhabit a hip, urban (well really suburban) milieu while at the same time remaining firmly tied to the contemporary climbing scene, especially that of bouldering and sport climbing. Few who read UC gave a @#% about some 5.13 big wall at the South Pole or whether another 5 minutes had been shaved off the record for the Eiger. Anything to do with Everest was basically (and still is, maybe even more so) just a joke. Ice belonged in a cooler reserved for post-climb beverages. R-ratings belonged to movies, not routes. Women showed up regularly in its pages, in contrast, for example, to the somewhat-revived Ascent, where for the last two issues at least, a demographic consisting almost exclusively of white men over 50 has dominated.

Its biggest failing I suppose, given its demise, was not being reverent enough to the gods of the market, though I admit I am not even sure who/what they are now, given the ubiquity of free media. Advertisers have always driven the bus to some extent, but in the Internet age, there is no margin for error, no story that isn't ultimately about creating value for the companies that help underwrite the publication. Perhaps the notion that climbers can be depicted as ridiculous, frivolous, ironic, sarcastic, and truly self-deprecating and not just humblebragging is one whose day has mostly passed. Who can say for sure?

There are other outlets for this attitude but UC seemed a bit more tuned into this sensibility than most and only after its demise have I really begun to notice its absence. Warren Harding's motto summed this attitude up best as "Semper Farcisimus." UC didn't always get it right and sure there was fluff and yes, it took a year to get paid, but Joe, Justin, and Andrew, thanks for at least trying.

Google Apps Problems:

This is not a climbing related post but I thought I would share some problems I have been having with the Blogger "platform" and see if anyone is having similar experiences. I posted this recently on the Google Product forums:

"Hi All,

I have been seeing a lot of comments about Google Apps and thought I would share my experience.

Recently I started receiving emails about custom domain renewal for my three blogs not going through (probably because a credit card was expiring) so I thought I would straighten things out. I realized that I had erred in not setting up admin sites for each blog and then tried to figure out what to do next. After a lot of time digging around, I came to the realization that Google theoretically has three Google Apps accounts, one for each blog, and I can only access the admin site for one, leaving two to somehow still get access to. The email link that was sent to me a while back for setting up those accounts does not work anymore and trying to reset passwords using bloggeradmin@mydomain,com only results in my Google Account password getting reset.

Google documentation and support has no clear path out of this situation and it is turning into a big headache.I am planing on migrating my blog to Wordpress as a result and even starting from scratch with an entirely new domain and URL if necessary. Google has really messed this one up IMO. There should be a simple and straightforward way to regain access to these accounts

If anyone has any concrete and workable fixes for this situation, please let me know. At this point I would recommend staying away from Blogger as a blogging platform as the Google Apps administrative infrastructure is much too complicated and unreliable."

If anyone has any thoughts, please post or email. Given this catch-22, I may be starting over completely from scratch. As I stated above, if you are thinking of starting a blog do not use Google.

 Finally solved this problem through a seemingly random link found on a discussion group:https://www.google.com/a/cpanel/yourdomainname.com/ForgotAdminAccountInfo