Popes Realization

[ken4ord]

but what about those olympic sprinters? don't they just run around in circles? in a stadium built where a lovely field once was? ah, the blight called mankind.

 

OK, in case you're ignorant of this fact, climbing has traditions. These traditions dictate that climbing involves not only athletic ability and skill, but also boldness, adventure and respect for the medium. Turn your back on this and you'll lose what makes climbing special, what makes climbing different than Olympic-level competition in track or volleyball or synchronized swimming. Now, if you don't value boldness and tradition, but you still think scaling walls is "neato", then I suggest you stick to gym climbing and top-roping. Thereby can you remove ALL adventure and boldness from "climbing" and concentrate on perfecting your stupid little "project". I don't have a problem with this approach per se....it's when your bastardized form of climbing requires molesting our cliffs with a grid of bolts to accomodate your poor style that I have a problem.

 

There you go folks, the only reasons to climb is for boldness and tradition. If you are climbing for any other reason then you have bastardized the whole sport of climbing. You might as well take up sycronized swimming.

 

So what about mountain biking, isn't that a bastardization the sport of cycling? Ah the shame. Gawd damn why did ruin golf by making these damned groomed course everywhere? Didn't they realized that golf was to be played in the rough? The list goes on and on. Sports evolve, not that evolution is always a good thing.

 

Seriously man, I agree with you on some points when it comes to bolting and find overbolting quite rediculus at times. Though, when you start spewing about what climbing is to you and make blanket statements that other aspects of climbing are for sissy's and gym weenies that don't have any values. Then it just makes you sound like one of those right-wingnut narrow minded christian fucks who can't seem to understand there is more than one belief system to live life by. Yeah I think it is crap to stick BoLT's on every little piece-o-shit crag everywhere, but I can step off the soap box and understand why they want their BoLT's and accept they don't appreciate climbing for the same reasons I do. Just because they don't appreciate climbing for the same reasons I do, doesn't illegitimze what they consider climbing. As long you can't get beyond that you will never make a change in bolting ethics, you'll just keep the fight going and get nowhere.

[lizard_brain]

Fuck this shit. I'd rather go climbing.

[RuMR]

So, Don Ryan (Raindawg), you have a problem with somebody working hard and attain an objective? Or do you think he is so "good" it came easily?

 

Mediocrity is available to any trustafarian with the inclination.

 

OH...I SEE...its the people who are blessed that get to do this...not the ones who've said "fuck everything, i'm going climbing"...

 

you are an idiot...and of course, had you been granted unlimited resources, you could've attained sharma's level of mediocrity!

[RuMR]

hey dwayner...

 

about that lil' wager we had several years back that you wisely decided to ignore...I still got the mula in the kitty...what say you?????

[RuMR]

but what about those olympic sprinters? don't they just run around in circles? in a stadium built where a lovely field once was? ah, the blight called mankind.

 

OK, in case you're ignorant of this fact, climbing has traditions. These traditions dictate that climbing involves not only athletic ability and skill, but also boldness, adventure and respect for the medium. Turn your back on this and you'll lose what makes climbing special, what makes climbing different than Olympic-level competition in track or volleyball or synchronized swimming. Now, if you don't value boldness and tradition, but you still think scaling walls is "neato", then I suggest you stick to gym climbing and top-roping. Thereby can you remove ALL adventure and boldness from "climbing" and concentrate on perfecting your stupid little "project". I don't have a problem with this approach per se....it's when your bastardized form of climbing requires molesting our cliffs with a grid of bolts to accomodate your poor style that I have a problem.

 

There you go folks, the only reasons to climb is for boldness and tradition. If you are climbing for any other reason then you have bastardized the whole sport of climbing. You might as well take up sycronized swimming.

 

So what about mountain biking, isn't that a bastardization the sport of cycling? Ah the shame. Gawd damn why did ruin golf by making these damned groomed course everywhere? Didn't they realized that golf was to be played in the rough? The list goes on and on. Sports evolve, not that evolution is always a good thing.

 

Seriously man, I agree with you on some points when it comes to bolting and find overbolting quite rediculus at times. Though, when you start spewing about what climbing is to you and make blanket statements that other aspects of climbing are for sissy's and gym weenies that don't have any values. Then it just makes you sound like one of those right-wingnut narrow minded christian fucks who can't seem to understand there is more than one belief system to live life by. Yeah I think it is crap to stick BoLT's on every little piece-o-shit crag everywhere, but I can step off the soap box and understand why they want their BoLT's and accept they don't appreciate climbing for the same reasons I do. Just because they don't appreciate climbing for the same reasons I do, doesn't illegitimze what they consider climbing. As long you can't get beyond that you will never make a change in bolting ethics, you'll just keep the fight going and get nowhere.

...and nevermind the fact that he's looking at an enormous fall if he blows it...yeah, those pesty finger cracks are soooo much more adventurous/dangerous...

[kevbone]

Your utter ignorance is at times overwhelming.

 

Funny you say that....that is how I feel about you.

[kevbone]

 

OK, in case you're ignorant of this fact, climbing has traditions. These traditions dictate that climbing involves not only athletic ability and skill, but also boldness, adventure and respect for the medium. Turn your back on this and you'll lose what makes climbing special, what makes climbing different than Olympic-level competition in track or volleyball or synchronized swimming. Now, if you don't value boldness and tradition, but you still think scaling walls is "neato", then I suggest you stick to gym climbing and top-roping. Thereby can you remove ALL adventure and boldness from "climbing" and concentrate on perfecting your stupid little "project". I don't have a problem with this approach per se....it's when your bastardized form of climbing requires molesting our cliffs with a grid of bolts to accomodate your poor style that I have a problem.

 

Are you trying to discredit Sharma’s send on Realization? Or the other 3 people to climb it clean? It is so subjective……how can you judge such a thing? Have you watched to video of Sharma doing it? I own it and anytime I want to be truly inspired I put it in and listen to him grunt with total passion up a project he worked over a 3 year period to be the first person to send. Notice he could not clip the bolts……watch the vid…..there is a 40 foot fall on the climb that he took at least 20 times…….that is my mind is bold…….

 

 

Hey Pope and Raindawg……before I became a father and climbed all the time I had projects……personal to me. One was an 11.b crack that I top roped first……is that ok with you. One reason I top roped it was I first attempted to climb it about a year after I started climbing. I figure if I was ever to climb 5.11 cracks I might as well start climbing them on top rope to get strong. I actually never thought about leading this particular crack until 6 years later when I sent on TR. Then I mock led it on TR (to see if I could place gear on it) a couple of years later …..and fell all over it. Still I never actually thought I would ever have the balls to lead it. About 4 months later I led it ground up and on that day all the pieces came together and it felt like it was 10.a. I yelled like a crazy person with excitement as I clipped the anchor. I tell you this because this was a “project” that I worked really hard on and eventually succeeded on. Would you even try to bag on my style of climbing it? I bet you would just because you both like to argue.

 

I see no difference between my send of my project and Sharma’s send of Realization. (Except the grade). Both were done out of passion and desire. I personally don’t take away from Chris’s send because it was on bolts. I hope you don’t either.

 

[RuMR]

hey kevbeenboned...ask dwayner about the ongoing "challenge/bet"...

[kevbone]

Hey Raindawg......what is up the the ongoing "challenge/bet"?

[Cobra_Commander]

You can see what he's been working on there just recently to the right of that route:

 

http://www.bigupproductions.com/

 

Go to "Extras" and click on "Three Degrees".

 

Those have to be some hard throws if dynoboy can't make them!

 

Again, what a beautiful cliff. I wish I could climb hard enough to justify a trip to that wall. France rocks!

[Cobra_Commander]

This one's for the fans:

 

 

[kevbone]

What a great photo......right Raindawg? I wonder if he brought the drill with him or bought it their or is borrowing it?

[Raindawg]

hey kevbeenboned...ask dwayner about the ongoing "challenge/bet"...

 

There is nothing "on-going" and "the bet" was childish. Here's the story which directly relates:

 

A few years ago, there was a discussion about hang-dogging in which I described it as "siege climbing". The old school philosophy is that you climb from the bottom up, and if you fell, you were lowered to the ground and started over, or you trained on lower grades and worked your abilities higher until you were good enough to address the climb on its own terms.

Hang-dogging...hanging off your gear to rest, falling repeatedly while rehearsing the moves, was considered weak free-climbing, essentially aid, and bogus. It demonstrated that you weren't ready. So let's say the climb is 5.13, and someone thrashes their way up this thing after weeks of hang-dogging and rehearsal and than pulls the rope and "red-points" it. Is this person really a 5.13 climber versus someone who has worked their abilities to the point where they can actually lead it on-site?

 

An analogous tradition can be seen in the expedition vs. alpine tradition in mountaineering where alpine-style climbing is considered a stylistically superior means of obtaining a summit. Reinhold Messner epitomized this by advocating and demonstrating the concept of climbing the mountain by fair means, not beating/sieging it into submission.

 

I also made the analogy on cc.com about a piano; something to the affect of: You may not be able to play the piano today but rehearse it enough and you'll be able to play a Beethoven sonata. This, by the way, does not mean that you have the same skill level of someone who has worked up their skill level to the point where new music can be set in front of them and they can play through a sonata without falling all over themselves.

 

I made the comment that I felt that nearly any climber with the dedication could, using the present rules of sport climbing, pull off a 5.13 if they were allowed to rehearse the moves endlessly into submission. It might take them months or a year or whatever, but put up rules like that, and it opens the door to all kinds of faux-accomplishments. I picked 5.13 because a lot of folks see that as a BIG NUMBER! and it seems to be a usual number for when the on-sight leading often ends and the sieging begins. Some folks chimed in saying 5.13 wasn't such a big deal anymore....it's what 5.12 was 20 years ago or 5.11 25 years ago. They're all over the place now...Whatever, I was making a theoretical statement apparently lost on many.

 

Then the usual cc.com taunts began, and a few of the usual and predictable blow-hards came out with frat-boy challenges to collect a bet that Dwayner couldn't possibly climb any kind of 5.13 no longer how he tried. It was utterly childish. One major moderator on this site told me that it would be impossible for me (to which I replied that I hope he doesn't spread his crappy attitude to children). The school-yard buddies delivered their usual lame clichés: "put your money where..." and my award for the most pathetic of all time: "don't cash a check your *ss can't deliver"

Believe me, if I had a convenient crag nearby, the interest and inspiration, and importantly, the time (none of which I have), it would be very satisfying to engage in such a challenge myself....it's not an excuse...it's reality...(on the other hand, I don't have an inclination to respond to juvenile bets, but if I ever do, it will be on my own time and terms). Regardless, my concept still stands. Perhaps someone with an abundance of the factors that thwart me can prove me correct.

 

Now wasn't that fascinating?

[Raindawg]

So, Don Ryan (Raindawg), you have a problem with somebody working hard and attain an objective? Or do you think he is so "good" it came easily?

 

I have a problem with the means of obtaining the objective. Do you really think that sieging a sport-climb to obtain some high-number is equivalent to having the skill to climb the route on-sight?

 

By the way, Matthew Perkins, you were the one who told me I could never climb a 5.13....you sized me up and decided I was incapable. I still say it's possible for most who want to work up to it or employ siege tactics...you seem to be the one putting limits on people, including people you don't know very well.

 

[olyclimber]

ahhh traditions! Like Christmas, they have always existed. Don't mess with them!

[mattp]

Donald P. Ryan,

 

No, I have never argued that a red point is the same as an onsight. Where did you get that idea?

 

I don't recall "sizing you up" and saying you could never under any circumstance climb any 5.13, but I certainly DO think it highly unlikely to the point where I'd say "no way" realizing there is a one in a million chance you'll prove me wrong. Your little essay here about how rehearsing moves is not the same as having mastery over terrain of a given difficulty is a far cry from your past writings on the topic, by the way. If I recall correctly, you even went so far as to say that your grandma could climb 5.13 and you included hearty disdain for anybody who would be so delusional as to consider themself a real climber if they engaged in "working a project." If you wrote it this way three years ago, maybe RuMR would not have offered the bet you find so childish nor felt compelled to remind you of it now.

 

In my opinion, Mr. Sharma is a talented athelete. I feel that his accomplishments deserve some measure of respect even if that may not be the style of climing that all of us aspire to. In god's eye, I suppose, you don't "owe" anybody such respect -- but I think he deserves it.

[lizard_brain]

ZZZZZZ-zzzzzz-ZZZZZZZ-zzzzz-ZZZZZZZZZ......

 

Another dead-end, boring thread.

[sexual_chocolate]

hey kevbeenboned...ask dwayner about the ongoing "challenge/bet"...

 

There is nothing "on-going" and "the bet" was childish. Here's the story which directly relates:

 

A few years ago, there was a discussion about hang-dogging in which I described it as "siege climbing". The old school philosophy is that you climb from the bottom up, and if you fell, you were lowered to the ground and started over, or you trained on lower grades and worked your abilities higher until you were good enough to address the climb on its own terms.

Hang-dogging...hanging off your gear to rest, falling repeatedly while rehearsing the moves, was considered weak free-climbing, essentially aid, and bogus. It demonstrated that you weren't ready. So let's say the climb is 5.13, and someone thrashes their way up this thing after weeks of hang-dogging and rehearsal and than pulls the rope and "red-points" it. Is this person really a 5.13 climber versus someone who has worked their abilities to the point where they can actually lead it on-site?

 

An analogous tradition can be seen in the expedition vs. alpine tradition in mountaineering where alpine-style climbing is considered a stylistically superior means of obtaining a summit. Reinhold Messner epitomized this by advocating and demonstrating the concept of climbing the mountain by fair means, not beating/sieging it into submission.

 

I also made the analogy on cc.com about a piano; something to the affect of: You may not be able to play the piano today but rehearse it enough and you'll be able to play a Beethoven sonata. This, by the way, does not mean that you have the same skill level of someone who has worked up their skill level to the point where new music can be set in front of them and they can play through a sonata without falling all over themselves.

 

I made the comment that I felt that nearly any climber with the dedication could, using the present rules of sport climbing, pull off a 5.13 if they were allowed to rehearse the moves endlessly into submission. It might take them months or a year or whatever, but put up rules like that, and it opens the door to all kinds of faux-accomplishments. I picked 5.13 because a lot of folks see that as a BIG NUMBER! and it seems to be a usual number for when the on-sight leading often ends and the sieging begins. Some folks chimed in saying 5.13 wasn't such a big deal anymore....it's what 5.12 was 20 years ago or 5.11 25 years ago. They're all over the place now...Whatever, I was making a theoretical statement apparently lost on many.

 

Then the usual cc.com taunts began, and a few of the usual and predictable blow-hards came out with frat-boy challenges to collect a bet that Dwayner couldn't possibly climb any kind of 5.13 no longer how he tried. It was utterly childish. One major moderator on this site told me that it would be impossible for me (to which I replied that I hope he doesn't spread his crappy attitude to children). The school-yard buddies delivered their usual lame clichés: "put your money where..." and my award for the most pathetic of all time: "don't cash a check your *ss can't deliver"

Believe me, if I had a convenient crag nearby, the interest and inspiration, and importantly, the time (none of which I have), it would be very satisfying to engage in such a challenge myself....it's not an excuse...it's reality...(on the other hand, I don't have an inclination to respond to juvenile bets, but if I ever do, it will be on my own time and terms). Regardless, my concept still stands. Perhaps someone with an abundance of the factors that thwart me can prove me correct.

 

Now wasn't that fascinating?

 

Hi Dwayner. How have you been? Long time no speak.

 

ok enough chit-chat.

 

It's easy to say "Oh I could do that." I know, because I do it all the time. It's a confidence I have, but the time eventually comes when I step on to that which I have almost blithely dismissed, and thank goodness occasionally get my ass kicked. This is good for me! It smacks me of my arrogance! It lets me know that I need to try if I want to do something, and that nothing is given until it is actually accomplished, and also takes me to what I love about climbing: figuring stuff out.

 

Let me re-state that: until one has climbed something quite specific, well, they haven't climbed it. Rather self-evident, yes? No amount of rationalization, equivocation, explanation, prognostication, hubris, or ventriloquism can change this fact.

You should know this: before that dinosaur bone is in your hand, it isn't in your hand, and you don't know whether or not you will find it. Perhaps you have a good idea that a specific location might contain dinosaur bones and eggs and mummies and stuff, but since you haven't climbed even a 5.12, what makes you think you will find a mummy in your closet?

 

Until you actually step out from behind your excuses and attempt that which you so arrogantly dismiss, you will be nothing but an archaeologist lost in your closet.

 

Did you know that Andres Segovia spent most of his time practicing scales and etudes? Very simple stuff, rehearsing and rehearsing. Many artists do this. Personally I'm more pulled by the spirit of things and not just the mastery, but I admire mastery also.

 

You, Mister Don, need to be less arrogant and climb more, instead of always complaining about the state of climbing.

[JayB]

I am the moderator in question. Leaving the matter of the bet aside for a moment, I'll address the matter of "passing along a crappy attitude to children" bit.

 

Dismissing the accomplishments of others that are quite beyond your demonstrated capacity to reproduce is a far worse ethic to instill than one that requires that you must be, at the very least, far superior to whomever you are criticizing in whatever discipline it is that is under discussion (which you both participate in) before you open your mouth. To use your example of astronauts, if Buzz Aldrin wants to talk shit about other astronauts, he's earned the right to do so. The guy who never made it into the program doesn't.

 

I'd say the kid who goes through life knowing that if he runs marathons himself, for example, he has no business making ridiculing anyone's time unless he's bested that himself. He'd do still better knowing that even if he is in a position to make disparaging comments about slower runners, he should have the class to refrain from doing so.

 

I have a hard time imagining any circumstances in which learning these ethics and living by them would do anything but benefit a child, but I can think of plenty of circumstances in which a kid who conducts himself in a manner that's contrary to them will suffer as a result.

[JayB]

hey kevbeenboned...ask dwayner about the ongoing "challenge/bet"...

 

There is nothing "on-going" and "the bet" was childish. Here's the story which directly relates:

 

A few years ago, there was a discussion about hang-dogging in which I described it as "siege climbing". The old school philosophy is that you climb from the bottom up, and if you fell, you were lowered to the ground and started over, or you trained on lower grades and worked your abilities higher until you were good enough to address the climb on its own terms.

Hang-dogging...hanging off your gear to rest, falling repeatedly while rehearsing the moves, was considered weak free-climbing, essentially aid, and bogus. It demonstrated that you weren't ready. So let's say the climb is 5.13, and someone thrashes their way up this thing after weeks of hang-dogging and rehearsal and than pulls the rope and "red-points" it. Is this person really a 5.13 climber versus someone who has worked their abilities to the point where they can actually lead it on-site?

 

An analogous tradition can be seen in the expedition vs. alpine tradition in mountaineering where alpine-style climbing is considered a stylistically superior means of obtaining a summit. Reinhold Messner epitomized this by advocating and demonstrating the concept of climbing the mountain by fair means, not beating/sieging it into submission.

 

I also made the analogy on cc.com about a piano; something to the affect of: You may not be able to play the piano today but rehearse it enough and you'll be able to play a Beethoven sonata. This, by the way, does not mean that you have the same skill level of someone who has worked up their skill level to the point where new music can be set in front of them and they can play through a sonata without falling all over themselves.

 

I made the comment that I felt that nearly any climber with the dedication could, using the present rules of sport climbing, pull off a 5.13 if they were allowed to rehearse the moves endlessly into submission. It might take them months or a year or whatever, but put up rules like that, and it opens the door to all kinds of faux-accomplishments. I picked 5.13 because a lot of folks see that as a BIG NUMBER! and it seems to be a usual number for when the on-sight leading often ends and the sieging begins. Some folks chimed in saying 5.13 wasn't such a big deal anymore....it's what 5.12 was 20 years ago or 5.11 25 years ago. They're all over the place now...Whatever, I was making a theoretical statement apparently lost on many.

 

Then the usual cc.com taunts began, and a few of the usual and predictable blow-hards came out with frat-boy challenges to collect a bet that Dwayner couldn't possibly climb any kind of 5.13 no longer how he tried. It was utterly childish. One major moderator on this site told me that it would be impossible for me (to which I replied that I hope he doesn't spread his crappy attitude to children). The school-yard buddies delivered their usual lame clichés: "put your money where..." and my award for the most pathetic of all time: "don't cash a check your *ss can't deliver"

Believe me, if I had a convenient crag nearby, the interest and inspiration, and importantly, the time (none of which I have), it would be very satisfying to engage in such a challenge myself....it's not an excuse...it's reality...(on the other hand, I don't have an inclination to respond to juvenile bets, but if I ever do, it will be on my own time and terms). Regardless, my concept still stands. Perhaps someone with an abundance of the factors that thwart me can prove me correct.

 

Now wasn't that fascinating?

 

Hi Dwayner. How have you been? Long time no speak.

 

ok enough chit-chat.

 

It's easy to say "Oh I could do that." I know, because I do it all the time. It's a confidence I have, but the time eventually comes when I step on to that which I have almost blithely dismissed, and thank goodness occasionally get my ass kicked. This is good for me! It smacks me of my arrogance! It lets me know that I need to try if I want to do something, and that nothing is given until it is actually accomplished, and also takes me to what I love about climbing: figuring stuff out.

 

Let me re-state that: until one has climbed something quite specific, well, they haven't climbed it. Rather self-evident, yes? No amount of rationalization, equivocation, explanation, prognostication, hubris, or ventriloquism can change this fact.

You should know this: before that dinosaur bone is in your hand, it isn't in your hand, and you don't know whether or not you will find it. Perhaps you have a good idea that a specific location might contain dinosaur bones and eggs and mummies and stuff, but since you haven't climbed even a 5.12, what makes you think you will find a mummy in your closet?

 

Until you actually step out from behind your excuses and attempt that which you so arrogantly dismiss, you will be nothing but an archaeologist lost in your closet.

 

Did you know that Andres Segovia spent most of his time practicing scales and etudes? Very simple stuff, rehearsing and rehearsing. Many artists do this. Personally I'm more pulled by the spirit of things and not just the mastery, but I admire mastery also.

 

You, Mister Don, need to be less arrogant and climb more, instead of always complaining about the state of climbing.

 

Having Sexual_Chocolate back on board, even for but a single post, has redeemed this entire thread...

[kevbone]

So.....Rain.....you ever climb a 13?

[Cobra_Commander]

bone... this ground has been walked before, no need to rehash. Life's too short to dwell on negativity.

[tomtom]

I made the comment that I felt that nearly any climber with the dedication could, using the present rules of sport climbing, pull off a 5.13 if they were allowed to rehearse the moves endlessly into submission.

 

Regardless, my concept still stands. Perhaps someone with an abundance of the factors that thwart me can prove me correct.

 

Umm, it would be impossible to 'prove' your assertion correct.

 

You are an embarrasment to your profession.

 

 

[kevbone]

 

Umm, it would be impossible to 'prove' your assertion correct.

 

You are an embarrasment to your profession.

 

 

 

:lmao: :lmao:

[RuMR]

hey kevbeenboned...ask dwayner about the ongoing "challenge/bet"...

 

There is nothing "on-going" and "the bet" was childish. Here's the story which directly relates:

 

A few years ago, there was a discussion about hang-dogging in which I described it as "siege climbing". The old school philosophy is that you climb from the bottom up, and if you fell, you were lowered to the ground and started over, or you trained on lower grades and worked your abilities higher until you were good enough to address the climb on its own terms.

Hang-dogging...hanging off your gear to rest, falling repeatedly while rehearsing the moves, was considered weak free-climbing, essentially aid, and bogus. It demonstrated that you weren't ready. So let's say the climb is 5.13, and someone thrashes their way up this thing after weeks of hang-dogging and rehearsal and than pulls the rope and "red-points" it. Is this person really a 5.13 climber versus someone who has worked their abilities to the point where they can actually lead it on-site?

 

An analogous tradition can be seen in the expedition vs. alpine tradition in mountaineering where alpine-style climbing is considered a stylistically superior means of obtaining a summit. Reinhold Messner epitomized this by advocating and demonstrating the concept of climbing the mountain by fair means, not beating/sieging it into submission.

 

I also made the analogy on cc.com about a piano; something to the affect of: You may not be able to play the piano today but rehearse it enough and you'll be able to play a Beethoven sonata. This, by the way, does not mean that you have the same skill level of someone who has worked up their skill level to the point where new music can be set in front of them and they can play through a sonata without falling all over themselves.

 

I made the comment that I felt that nearly any climber with the dedication could, using the present rules of sport climbing, pull off a 5.13 if they were allowed to rehearse the moves endlessly into submission. It might take them months or a year or whatever, but put up rules like that, and it opens the door to all kinds of faux-accomplishments. I picked 5.13 because a lot of folks see that as a BIG NUMBER! and it seems to be a usual number for when the on-sight leading often ends and the sieging begins. Some folks chimed in saying 5.13 wasn't such a big deal anymore....it's what 5.12 was 20 years ago or 5.11 25 years ago. They're all over the place now...Whatever, I was making a theoretical statement apparently lost on many.

 

Then the usual cc.com taunts began, and a few of the usual and predictable blow-hards came out with frat-boy challenges to collect a bet that Dwayner couldn't possibly climb any kind of 5.13 no longer how he tried. It was utterly childish. One major moderator on this site told me that it would be impossible for me (to which I replied that I hope he doesn't spread his crappy attitude to children). The school-yard buddies delivered their usual lame clichés: "put your money where..." and my award for the most pathetic of all time: "don't cash a check your *ss can't deliver"

Believe me, if I had a convenient crag nearby, the interest and inspiration, and importantly, the time (none of which I have), it would be very satisfying to engage in such a challenge myself....it's not an excuse...it's reality...(on the other hand, I don't have an inclination to respond to juvenile bets, but if I ever do, it will be on my own time and terms). Regardless, my concept still stands. Perhaps someone with an abundance of the factors that thwart me can prove me correct.

 

Now wasn't that fascinating?

hey tool bag...is a gym convenient enough for you??? I'd count a plastic 5.13 as valid...go for it, man, show us you can do what you spew...or shut the fuck up...or are you saying, in reality, that for your weak crumbling self, all the stars must align to pull off such a boast????

 

childish? childish is spraying crap about somebody's accomplishments, decrying their methods, then claiming that YOU could do it, but then saying "but i don't want to play that game"...

 

YOU ARE A POSER...plain and simple...