I think that this style of climbing resonates a lot better with the general public because it does such a good job of conveying difficulty.
If you look at a photo of Adam on one of his 9b's [1], it looks like a guy having a really hard time in a really steep place, but there are holds there. You see things that seem like a fella could hang from them.
Compare to the photo in the article, with its dead vertical, mile-high flat granite surface that's, well, kinda bumpy. There is nowhere in that image that the layman could picture himself existing for even a second before falling off.
It's a shame, in a way, that we sort of climbed off the top of the feasible difficulty for this style of route back in the '90s and had to turn to steeper, longer routes. You just don't get the captivating photos like you used to these days.
true, only those who tried climbing for at least few times do know how much difference the shape of the hold and the angle of the wall makes the difference.
layman can see me climbing some easy overhang in the gym (say 5c) in amazement, but it's basically a series of pullups with some stamina required (yeah, I am not a very good climber). on real rock with similar surface angle, or on some proper route I wouldn't last there for 2 seconds
I started indoor climbing about 3-4 months back as there is a gym nearby and I go with one of our devs. My goodness what an amazingly functional sport.
I have such immense respect and awe for those people that can climb such a flat surface. You really realise the insane grip strength and stamina they must have to be able to actually not fall off, let alone climb up.
I am quite happy with my positive holds on a flat surface and indoors though. Youtube bouldering world championships for some insane athletes!
Keep in mind that although he did it in a single push of 8 days, he has actually been up and down the wall for a lot longer, freeing and aiding every pitch many times. I was on the Nose almost a month ago and I could see his portaledge hanging out there. His accomplishment is really amazing and the Dawn Wall is so damn blank! No idea how these people get so good!
Well yeah, but Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgeson studied the wall for years. That this is Adam Ondra's first trip to Yosemite Valley and his first big wall makes it even more impressive. What an amazing achievement!
Plug for Valley Uprising (on Netflix) if you're interested in climbing. The progression of difficulty and (mostly friendly and supportive) competition between climbers is inspiring.
Amazing feat!
PS: Would be happy to take anyone else's recommendations for videos or books too.
This is only relevant if you understand Ondra's native tongue (Czech), which is extremely unlikely :-) But for anyone who does speak Czech: this is a rather fun interview, especially if you don't know much about climbing.
Seconded! Valley Uprising is worth watching (and available on Netflix in loads of countries, not just the US)
I just finished Alex Honnold's book (Alone on the Wall) and it's a fun read. Gives you a bit of backstory to the media frenzy that surrounds him at times.
In terms of videos, the Reel Rock film tour is amazing. They cover some really awesome climbs. And "Meru" is on Amazon Prime Video in a lot of countries (a short version was in Reel Rock one or two years ago).
Often Banff Mountain Film Festival has a good climbing film or two. The Caldwell/Honnold Fitz Traverse (for which they won Piolets d'Or) was in there this year. Strongly recommended- a really great story.
If you liked Valley Uprising, you should check out the documentary Dirtbag: The Legend of Fred Beckey, coming out in 2017 (http://dirtbagmovie.com/). Beckey was a pioneer of climbing all the way back to the 1940s -- and is still doing it today at 93. Saw him at Vertical World here in Seattle just a few months ago. Epic.
How do you like vertical world? I've been out of the sport for many years and my periodic attempts to return usually end with me going to a gym, realizing I won't be able to find an unoccupied wall for a few hours, and hanging up my shoes again. Are there places in Seattle I have a shot?
Vertical World is great -- two gyms, one at Interbay and the other in Redmond near Marymoor. It can get a bit crowded during peak hours, but the vibe is very friendly and welcoming. I also climb at Seattle Bouldering Project in the CD. It's a massive space with lots of room. Give it a try again!
"Touching the Void" is another great climbing/mountaineering book that is well worth the read. I have not seen the movie adaptation yet, so I cannot comment on its quality.
Every time time someone uses the world "conquer" to describe a climbing accomplishment, a million climbers face palm.
That said, this is a pretty descriptive article describing what happened in a way accessible to fairly general audience. I particularly liked the comparison "it's akin to Usain Bolt also being the fastest marathoner alive. That’s the hold Ondra has on climbing." It's incredible to imagine how far this guy might push the sport, given everything he has already accomplished at such a young age.
In simple terms, yes. More often it is used to mean that you were able to make it up a climb without taking a fall, having your belayer hold you with the rope, or pulling on any fixed gear.
I'm sure this will get down voted into oblivion. I respect the passion of climbing, I really do. However, I never agreed with drilling holes, and placing bolts, in all of these amazing natural structures. Just another thing we have to ruin for human enjoyment :(
Just FYI, the Clean Climbing movement that really picked up in the 70s has done a lot to try and minimize or avoid damage to rock. Just saying that as someone who doesn't climb, who didn't know about this (and nuts vs pitons) until I was bored and browsing the book store once.
Not sure there are enough people on HN who are so much into climbing that they'd downvote you. But it's pointless to have a trad vs sport argument or the tenmillionth time, especially here.
For those interested in the bolt or not to bolt debate, the Dawn Wall has always been at the epicenter of this controversy. When Warren Harding and Dean Caldwell did the first ascent they placed many bolts (most were tiny brittle aluminum dowels). Later, Royal Robbins and Don Lauria, made the 2nd ascent with the intention of removing those bolts. But they stopped removing the bolts as the beauty of the climb became apparent.
IMO, as someone who has climbed in the Valley for more than 25 years and has always been a traditionalist, drilled bolts have there place in climbing. It would be hard to convince me that bolts on El Cap or any where else in the Valley have 'ruined' the massif.
I get the bolts-are-good and bolts-are-bad side of the argument. When I see them, they remind me of survey markers...you only notice them when they are relevant to what you are doing, and they remind me that someone "was here".
Climbing seems to be the developer’s sport. It’s not team based (beyond your belayer), there’s no schedule so you can fit it in around other things, and especially with bouldering it’s split into short challenges that are as much mental as physical.
I've seen it posted on HN before, but worth mentioning again that climbing also has a culture of open evaluation and continuous improvement as well. Detailed accident reports and analysis from the American Alpine Club are available in an online database (http://publications.americanalpineclub.org/search). Rock and Ice, one of the leading media outlets for climbers, has a regular "Climbing Accidents and Prevention" column (http://www.rockandice.com/climbing-accident-reports) as well as failure testing for gear. Given the "dirtbag extreme sport" image that is often projected on climbing, the vast majority of folks I know are keenly aware of the risks and have an engineer's mindset when thinking about ways to reduce the chance of failure.
Hmmm...actually, that's very unlike many of the developers I know... ;-)
Ha! ture, i feel like the sport trifecta for developer types might be climbing, cycling (road and/or mtb) and ultimate frisbee :-) Am I out on a ledge here ? (pun intended)
I flew gliders many years ago (briefly) and it seemed that IT was extremely overrepresented in the club. Also at my previous job I had 3 glider pilot colleagues in a team of about 18 developers. Climbing and cycling are fairly common among people in general it seems, but to my knowledge I've never even met anyone who plays ultimate frisbee.
Same here.. Skating/boarding/climbing/bmx/frisbee.. Never forget a lot of sports are actually a bit like engineering and likely trigger the same brain areas to be used. That, plus adrenaline, makes this stuff an addiction.
well, it is properly amazing activity. endless creativity in movements and situation (unless you only go to gym which would be a shame, but even that is great thing to do), you work out yourself to decent fitness at least, and usually in beautiful mountainous/natural environments. and let's not forget constant need to overcome one's fear of dying/getting injured, which a pretty strong reflex - this builds good overall character over time.
add to it very friendly community, possibility to focus on anything from 2m boulder problem to few thousand metres of altitude difference alpinism depending on your current wishes, and I am not surprised.
there are tons of great sports out there, tried many (but far from all!) but this one just works for me personally best (+ ski touring in winter).
Mmmm, my experience was quite different. I found it very click-ish and there was never a shortage of people saying "you're doing it wrong" based entirely on an incomplete observation from an obstructed vantage, technical differences of opinion or merely vanilla brow-beaters. If lots of testosterone(not exclusively) and competition is what you're after, then my point doesn't apply to you. This does not imply all climbers, but enough times I opted to avoid established routes and crowds. To each their own.
Been exploring remote canyons & game trails solo for 25 years, I find the experience of discovery on 3s and 4s more satisfying than conquering 5+s for the nth time.
Hmm, then our experience is quite different. Are you in US? my experience is solely in Europe, Switzerland and France to be more precise.
Nevertheless those explorative scramble/easy climbs are indeed very nice experiences, but it depends. Matterhorn hornli route has only 4c french grade as at crux, but doing it with massive exposure, cold, in alpine boots/crampons and gloves makes it damn stressful and hard for us weekend warriors for example.
Yes, the south-west US exclusively. I never achieved "big wall" climber status. I have much respect for those who achieve such heights, while not necessarily caring for the attitude/mindset/personality required to reach such lofty goals.
I bet you could find some of them to help you learn more about climbing!
I climb, many of my climbing partners are developers, including a few who recently climbed in Yosemite. It's engaging and fun. If you've got a climbing gym around, you should check it out!
Here's a google translation of just a few days old Czech article about him from his beginnings as a child. I thought Alex Honnold is the best one and didn't know about Ondra till this weekend although I am Czech as well.
That is fucking amazing. I can't even comprehend what it must be like to be living on that wall for eight days (let alone 19 or 28). The mental and emotional state it must put you in...
If you want to get a sense of what this was like in the "old days," read about Charlie Porter spending nine days, alone, climbing a new, difficult route on Mount Asgard [0], in the Baffin Mountains.
You might be interested in the ascent of "Wings of Steel" which originally took Mark Smith and Richard Jensen 39 days, later also completed by Ammon McNeely and Kait Barber. The first ascent team had to deal with a lot of problems too. Not only less modern gear, but open and dangerous hostility from some of the local climbing community.
It seems crazy, but it is really no different than sleeping in a hotel room or going camping. You initially are uncomfortable and it takes a bit of time for your brain to acknowledge it is safe to sleep in a strange place. Then you realize you are exhausted and pass out.
And unless you REALLY toss and turn in your sleep, you are as safe as your anchors (and if you are doing this, you know how to make anchors. Or are so incredibly stupid that you are trying to win a Darwin award).
The people who do this probably know, not only rationally but also emotionally, that the difference between 100 and 2000 feet is only a few seconds: the seconds that you stay alive longer if you fall from the latter height.
I wonder if in my lifetime we'll ever see a big, sustained free climb go up that surpasses the Dawn Wall. It took Tommy Caldwell 7 years just to unlock it. Testpieces like that don't come around very often.
it's considered the hardest climb globally in this type of climbing. you won't find such a huge face in himalaya for example. so first we would need to find a tougher one. if you look at the photos/description, there are not many massive polished almost-vertical walls like this one
Different sites have different policies for bolting, for example, Yosemite allows drilling and bolting, as long as it's done by hand (no motorised drills) [1].
Most bolts are placed by local climbers, and it's widely recognised that there is an "ethical" aspect to bolting: whether they should be fitted, where they should be fitted, etc. If someone came along and indiscriminately bolted a route, without any consultation with the local community, it would provoke an outcry.
Generally, bolts are fitted by a climber on an abseil rope. They'll reach the top using an alternative, easy route (at many crags, you can reach the top simply by hiking along a path), then abseil down, and drill/fit the bolts whilst attached to an abseiling rope.
Installing bolts whilst lead-climbing is done, but it's not very common. The climber would start by securing themselves to the cliff using traditional 'lead protection' (which is designed to be temporary, and generally not as secure as a bolt). Once secured, they would drill and fit the bolt.
Who: Aside from Yosemite, the answer is "it depends", a lot of these are just set up by enterprising enthusiasts, often technically illegally, but few care enough to bother them.
In some parks & locations they're set up by whoever manages the park / owns the area to attract climbers & the business that comes with it.
Some people in the mountaineering / climbing community don't like them since they leave a permanent trace ("take only photos, leave only footprints"), and prefer to use removable versions of these for just the duration of the climb.
Dislike is something of an understatement. For many decades, there has been a tit-for-tat war between sport and trad climbers. Sport climbers bolt a route, then trad climbers come along with bolt croppers and remove the protection. In many areas, bolting is carried out under cover of darkness, for fear of violent confrontation with traditionalists.
The Dawn Wall has been a significant battleground in this war. The first ascent was made by Harding and Caldwell in 1970 using bolts and significant aid climbing; A year later, Royal Robbins made the second ascent, chopping off the bolts as he went.
I think that's overblowing it. 99.9% of the time, trad climbers and sport climbers and their respective ethics coexist peacefully. There are rock climbing areas that are better suited to trad and areas that are suited to sport, and most of the time those areas are pretty well agreed upon. There are also areas (such as Yosemite) where a mixture of removable gear and permanent gear is most appropriate and in those cases, the general rule of 'removable gear where possible, fixed gear where necessary' is also well agreed upon.
What you're talking about with Harding and Robbins on the Dawn Wall is a clash of ethics that is long in the past. Very few people consider it worthwhile hammering pitons into a slice of blank rock in order to ascend it and aid climbing in itself is less popular with respect to free climbing.
Before it was "discovered" that placing and removing pitons or even chocks actually caused wear in the rock, the permanence of bolting was considered a negative. Now you can look at it as, better to have something there permanently than to have gradually widening holes punctuating a fine crack.
If you think it isn't sporting, just do the route solo free so you don't have any impact on the rock at all. /elitist /maybe
Back the end of September I was photographing folk on the Dawn Wall from down the valley, as we were passing through from the Bay to Park City, heading to a futurist conference...
This is not a photo of the Dawn Wall. These climbers are climbing a route called Tangerine Trip (I believe) which is significantly easier than the Dawn Wall. Climbers climb to the top of El Cap every day, the Dawn Wall has only had 2 ascents.
What kind of strength does one have to have on the finger to be able to hold himself with just the tip? I have always wondered. I only saw climbing scenes in movies and have always wondered if people actually are able to work with such little grip and it seems they are.
So for such climbing do they use earlier runs to put the rings (whatever they are call) for the safety lines during the actual climb?
There's just one safety line (it's called the lead line) and it runs through -- in the video you watch -- quickdraws (or slings with carabiners) that hang on bolts. On other pitches of climbing, it runs through different types of protection: cams, nuts, pitons, and what's called "fixed mank."
And yes, the bolts here were originally installed earlier, possibly back in 70s by the first ascensionist, although I'm not sure what the history of the present-day bolts are. I'm guessing they were added by Caldwell/Jorgeson as they were preparing the free variation of this classic aid line some years ago.
There are various ethical considerations in bolting and it gets very contentious among people who care about this sort of thing.
Suffice to say, to free climb a route like this, yes, you have to be incredibly strong, mentally and physically.
Two considerations when installing permanent hardware:
1 - You're drilling a hole in a rock. It's a small action, but it can't be undone. Can you justify forever altering part of a beautiful natural landscape to support your ambition? Keep in mind that the outdoors community in general has a leave-no-trace ethic.
2 - Every piece of permanent hardware makes the route safer and logistically and psychologically easier (to a certain extent). There's an argument that just because YOU want/need a bolt at a particular point on a route, there's no guarantee that someone stronger/tougher/better-equipped couldn't come along and forgo that bolt. What right do you have to bring the challenge down to your level? Perhaps the most extreme example of this was Cesare Maestri hauling a gigantic compressor powered drill up Cerro Torre and drilling a line of bolts all the way to the top [1]. Reinhold Messner called this 'the murder of the impossible.'
There's a forever-ongoing debate in the climbing community on these subjects, trying to determine what good 'style' is. Part of that discussion is determining the appropriate circumstances for installing permanent hardware. Personally I'm happy to clip bolts when they're needed, but I can understand the perspective of those who don't like em.
I climb, but I'm not 100% familiar with the ethical considerations personally. I think there are different viewpoints. I think these cover some of the views.
Some people think that bolting a wall "spoils" it ecologically, damages it's pureness. Once you've run a line of bolts up a route you can't un-do it. There's always going to be at least bolt holes or bolts there.
Some people don't think "sport" climbing (where you clip into quickdraws on the way up) is "real" climbing, but "trad" (where you place "pro", or protection, on the way up that you later "clean" or remove) is.
You can still trad climb a route that's been bolted, you just ignore the bolts, but some people might consider it less pure as a result I guess.
Here's a video of a top climber's training routine, to give you an idea of what goes into developing the kind of strength needed to climb at an elite level:
For pitch 15 of the Dawn wall, Caldwell drilled bolts with hangers into the granite likely while rapelling down from above and pre-placed quick draws (two carabiners connected by a short loop of webbing) on the bolt hangers- this was all done ahead of time in preparation for the redpoint, (the official climb done from the ground up) You can see Tommy in the video clipping his rope in as he goes along.
The permanent bolts are only used on blank sections of the wall where there are no cracks available to place removable anchors such as nuts and cams.
There's no doubt these top level climbers have incredibly strong fingers. But as an amateur climber, you'd probably be surprised at how much your grip strength improves to the point that you can hang by your finger tips on such small holds. Grip strength is not really something people use in every day life so unless you lift weights at the gym or go climbing your strength is probably pretty undeveloped. I think a lot of people see this and think I could never be that strong but after a bit of practice it does not feel so unlikely.
Just worth noting: for those who want to increase their grip strength. The things you squeeze are fine, actually climbing (or lifting weights (or whatever)) is optimal. Avoid fingerboards for quite a while as those are a sure way to injure yourself if your body is not ready.
lifting weights does very little in actual fingers strength. there are funny videos around when muscular lifters try climbing, they fail quite fast after couple of moves.
you can train a bit with various squeezy thingies, what helps too is just hanging by hands from some thicker bar (so you cannot grip it comfortably). but by far best training, especially in beginning is just climbing. it takes time for all connecting tissue to build up (tendons, ligament etc. - it's not about muscle for fingers). fingerboard can indeed be dangerous if attempted early - say from 6b-6c in french scale.
much of the art of staying on the wall is about proper balance - this can be trained a bit on slackline for example, but again best training is just climbing often.
Honestly: it seemed a bit off to me too, but it was mentioned so I assumed it probably did something.
Although, the lifter thing is more just that they don't realize they need to use their legs. Common problem in general, but most people are weak enough that they realize "Something isn't right here" soon enough.
We like to mock one of our friends because he started off climbing and was completely drained after a single 5.7 because he used JUST his arms. Made it to the top (and got pretty damned far up a 5.8), but... holy crap. Few things will make you feel more inadequate than being reminded that your belayer used to do that.
In general, when you see a climber bearing down on a tiny crimp that fits the very tip of just one finger, seeming to support his body weight on it, that is exactly what is happening. His feet will be on holds that are considerably worse.
The amazing thing is that if you apply yourself to climbing and train for a few years, you will be able to move off similar holds in similar positions.
As a non-climber, when I watch the Dawn Wall videos, there's an illusion that the surface is 90 degrees sheer, perpendicular to the ground. Understanding that there is actually a slight incline puts those tiny holds in a little more context, moving the concept of clinging to the wall's surface from "impossible" to "outrageous".
EDIT: I should note that this image is the route that a different pair of climbers took last year. I’m not sure if Adam followed the same route or not.
It's just very different, to the point where you can't even compare the two climbers with the same ruler. Honnold's biggest achievements are notable because of the risk he takes while soloing. Ondra -- although he tackled some bold climbing on the Dawn Wall -- didn't stick his neck out there in nearly the same way, but instead performed a sustained exhibition of incredible athleticism.
They're both the best at what they do, but they do different things, and I don't think either of them could do what the other does.
Since the original question wasn't yes or no, I was confused by what "saying 'nope'" meant. Here's a quote (from Honnold, but about a different Dawn Wall ascent) from your link that might be relevant:
> People just assume I must be some great climber but I'm like, 'yeah but this is even harder than anything I've done.' It's really, really hard. The holds are just a little bit smaller and [a] little bit further apart.
It's also worth mentioning that 95% of the Nose can be free-climbed by just about anyone that really trains for it. It's hard, but it's not that hard. The Dawn Wall, in contrast, is basically off limits for your average free climber -- especially the middle pitches -- unless you're among the best of the very best.
You can check out the topos for each climb. This is the nose (http://www.supertopo.com/topos/yosemite/thenose.pdf [p15-16]), and you can see, with just a few exceptions, most of the pitches are graded 5.10 or easier.
This is the Dawn Wall (http://www.rockandice.com/dawn-wall-el-cap-yosemite-topo). It's much, much harder, particularly when you realize that the Yosemite Decimal System progresses like the Richter scale, in the sense that a step from 5.13a to 5.13b (an increase of 1 grade unit) is leaps and bounds harder to achieve than improving from, say, 5.8 to 5.9.
It's much, much harder, particularly when you realize
that the Yosemite Decimal System progresses like the
Richter scale, in the sense that a step from 5.13a to
5.13b (an increase of 1 grade unit) is leaps and bounds
harder to achieve than improving from, say, 5.8 to 5.9.
Although this was the myth I was taught (or what us precocious kids must have made ourselves believed, since obv. we were progressing so well/so poorly) as well as a teenager, it's false. The Richter scale goes up logarithmic base 10, so that 2 in magnitude is 10 times more than 1 in magnitude.
Climbing grades don't follow that, nor do they follow a linear pattern, (although they follow MORE closer to a linear pattern...). It's just that 5.10 is harder than 5.9; 5.13b is harder than 5.13a.
There's no mathematically exactitude over it. A 5.13b climb just "feels" harder than a 5.13a climb, and a consensus has been reached. YDS is after all, open ended. If it was logarithmic like the Richter scale, going from 5.13 to 5.14 (5.13a, b, c, d, then 5.14a) would be 100,000x more difficult, which obviously it is not. The original YDS from 5.0 to 5.9 were based on benchmark climbs (not in Yosemite, strangely enough).
Grades afterwards were added as things were getting a little crazy to be calling them, "5.9", so "5.10" was born. This also gives you the peculiarity where established 5.9 climbs are, "harder" than newer 5.10 climbs, and this repeats for 5.10d/5.11a; 5.11d/5.12a, as the scale kept going up.
Then you gotta remember that all the climbing areas in even just this country are geographically isolated, so a 5.9 in Eldorado Canyon is different than a 5.9 at Devil's Lake. Yosemite itself is known to be pretty stiff. Unless you're good at a particular style, then...
Anyways, it's a big mess, and it'll never be fixed. What Ondra is doing is pretty hard. Let's remember he's only 23.
It's like lots of things in sport, actually. Imagine the progression from running a 6 minute mile to a 5 minute mile to a 4 minute mile. Now go to a 3:55 from there. It's a much smaller notch than 6:00 to 5:00, but will take you ten years of training.
So sure, you can consider it just adding more weight to the bar in a linear fashion. It still a lot harder to lift each individual pound as the weight increases.
Actually, I don't consider it like adding weight, since climbing grade difficulty isn't calculated in a way that would be so simple.
There's no objective way climbs are organized in difficulty except by subjective feeling. Holds may be (say) smaller, and/or farther apart, but the difficulty can only be sussed out in a general sense - there's far too many things to take into consideration.
Compounding all this is that a climb could be more/less difficult because of a climber's body type (tall/short climbers excel at different climbs)
So you're left with a consensus, which is living and breathing, not a calculation.
I've always thought of it in the way that if you went to an area like Yosemite or Font (bouldering) - then for every 100 people messing about, then 10 of them would be able to climb (5.12, Font 7a+) and 1 of them would be climbing (5.13, Font 8a).
Those difficulty conversion are possibly way way off and this areas may attract particularly good climbers ... but my point is the scale is logarithmic in the sense of how many people can achieve each tick level.
At least in bouldering, John Gill proposed the, "B" scale, which measured basically how many people were able to top the problem. So if you established a climb, it gets a grade of, "B1", until another person gets sends it "B2". This scale basically favors the hardest problems being the most important, and adjusts the grade of the climbs, as the "sport" progresses.
Gill was a Math professor, so this is somewhat interesting to the discussion. He famously thought of boulders as, "problems", of course.
Yeah, 5.10a -> 5.10b is about the same step up as 5.7 -> 5.8 and the Yosemite Decimal System was indeed developed somewhere other than Yosemite: Tahquitz/Suicide in Southern CA [1] (where many of the golden age climbers and stonemasters honed their skills)
Since the grades are subjective, and largely determined by the first ascentionists, (although through consensus sometimes re-graded) this is not possible. My subjective take on it, up to 5.11+, can't speak for anything beyond that, is that a bump in a grade, any grade is about the same increase in difficulty. My climbing has mostly been in Joshua Tree, Idyllwild, Smith Rocks and a bit in the valley.
As always when someone asks such questions (including when I asked one a week or so ago), the answer is that this is a site for news of interest to hackers, not necessarily news about hacking. If you want to judge whether this is of interest to hackers, then just look at the lively activity of the rest of the thread; it compares quite favourably to even some quieter front-page discussions.
> You are right, this is not Hacking News. And I regret my vehemence.
Such civility is always welcome. Thank you!
> Still, the livelyhood of the thread is not much of a factor in my opinion.
> Though rock-climbing is in itself interesting (maybe more than average to devs) it has no direct link to being a hacker/dev.
Isn't this in contradiction with your first paragraph, though? This site is specifically and explicitly about things that are of interest to hackers, not things that are directly linked to being a hacker or developer; and it seems that the best way to gauge what is of interest to hackers is to get together a community of them, such as we have here, and see in which discussions they participate.
If you look at a photo of Adam on one of his 9b's [1], it looks like a guy having a really hard time in a really steep place, but there are holds there. You see things that seem like a fella could hang from them.
Compare to the photo in the article, with its dead vertical, mile-high flat granite surface that's, well, kinda bumpy. There is nowhere in that image that the layman could picture himself existing for even a second before falling off.
It's a shame, in a way, that we sort of climbed off the top of the feasible difficulty for this style of route back in the '90s and had to turn to steeper, longer routes. You just don't get the captivating photos like you used to these days.
[1] https://www.8a.nu/images/news/large/636002137114161240_13320...