Poll: Is Bouldering a seperate pursuit from climbing routes

Ok, so the discussion that my buddy and I have been having goes something like this:
Me: "Bouldering is a completely worthwhile pursuit in and of itself. It is perhaps even a different sport altogether, seperate and distinct from climbing routes."
My Buddy: "Bouldering is only a worthwhile pursuit to the extent that you use it to train for climbing routes. In essence all it is is climbing short routes. And traversing bouldering problems are totally worthless."

I just want to see what people's opinion is on this.
Is bouldering just a means to another end? Or is it a credible aspect of the sport, exclusive from all other aspects?

I will be interested to see what the community's opinion is...regardless of whether you enjoy bouldering or not.

Although bouldering is fun. I see it as a supplement to my climbing. Especially when there are time constraints. Bouldering is definitely climbing short routes and traversing is stupid : )

Is cragging a separate pursuit from mountaineering? maybe yes, maybe no; depends on your personal liking. For me, everything is within my liking.

Bouldering is a different form of climbing. As is sport, trad and walls. you have different mindsets, techniques, gear and logic in which you begin to approach a climb. It may be 4 ft or 4,000ft and they both can be summed up by the word "climbing" but they are oh so different.

I love bouldering. It offers alot of stuff that I cant or wont do on a rope off the deck.
Plus having a few brews and yucking around some boulders with pals is a great time.

Like free soloing, Bouldering is a very pure form of climbing. It is movement over rock, unencumbered by gear. The mind and body are free to focus entirely on the rock and the climbing of that rock.

However, these days, I will admit that Bouldering is relegated to training and for days when my partners are busy and I can't climb longer routes.

I see bouldering as a sort of subset of the overall sport of 'climbing'. Likewise for sport, trad, big wall/aid, etc.

For me, bouldering is great for training and strength building, but that's how it is for me. Likewise sport climbing is good for developing technique and 'sight' that I can use to make myself a stronger climber on trad routes.

It's all fun though - and that is the best part!

I have only been climbing for about six months now but I see it all as a means to an end. The end to get higher in to the mountains. Climbing and bouldering are practice for me being as I currently live in a place with a massive lack of mountains. But hey if nothing else bouldering and climbing are more fun then weight lifting.

tell your buddy he can think what he wants but you're going to go have fun bouldering. i'm not much of a boulderer myself but i've met lots of people who boulder exclusively and never rope up. whether by itself it is a worthwhile pursuit or not is completely dependent on the person doing it. is it worthwhile to you? if it is, then enjoy!

also, the next time he tells you what is or is not a good use of your time, introduce his face to the back of your hand.

Bouldering has formed its own sub-culture as well. So much so that many boulderers refer to rope climbers as "chuffers"

Tim Stich wrote:Bouldering has formed its own sub-culture as well. So much so that many boulderers refer to rope climbers as "chuffers"

Funny! I always refered to them as "Fluffers".

sean connors wrote: Funny! I always refered to them as "Fluffers".

now that's a whole new means to an end.....

Chuffers?
I refer to the people who only boulder as "Children".

For me bouldering is fun, but is definitely supplemental training for roped climbing. I think that if you never boulder you're missing out, and if you never climb roped you're missing out as well.

For all of those hardcore boulderers that call us chuffers, or fluffers, or whatever, it's really cool because we never have to run into you on all of the amazing roped climbs out there ;) no really ....stick to bouldering, please... you're not missing a thing!!!

Bouldering, Aid, and Free Soloing are the least contrived forms of climbing. Every time you make up a little bullshit game to play (e.g. "i'm gonna put this crap in the rock in case i fall, but i'm not going to pull on it"), you have to understand that you've gone down the garden path of ethics. You've made up a more complex game, and diluted the experience. Bouldering, its cousin soloing, and aid are different in the simplicity of the game (i.e. you're here. get up there. do what it takes.).

Less toys, less contrived games, more proof in the pudding. That's aid and bouldering/soloing.

Wow... Although i've never realized it until now, I see now that my entire climbing career has been accompanied by an underlying subliminal effort to never think this hard on subjects such as this. In fact, i don't know if that can really be considered an effort. That said i can honestly say, i wouldn't drive hours and hours just to boulder. But, to climb, yes... i would, in fact, drive several hours to climb.

Would i think less of someone that went on a road trip just to hit bouldering spots? Hell no, whatever greens yer beans... but that in mind, i would refrain from comparing the two and the people that favor either. Seems a bit like comparing sprinting and distance running... to each his/her own i guess. I've always been a distance runner, personally.

Oh and Tico, i get what you're saying but the fact of the matter is when i climb... i fall. Not everyday but it most certainly happens... and when it does, gravity isn't diluted one bit. And since i have mouths to feed back at the ranch, i like to know i will make it back home at the end of the day... my ethical back-monkey sleeps just fine. ;)

Not to flame my own thread. Ok I'm flaming my own thread, or maybe just trying to provoke more conversation, because I think it is an interesting conversation for the sake of conversation....
My issue is not that bouldering is better or worse than climbing routes as I get alot of satisfaction from participating in all aspects of the sport.
But I think to deny bouldering its place in the climbing world as a means to its own ends is not fair. For some people to view it personally as a mode of training for other aspects of the sport is great and a fair opinion to hold, as there is no question that it is a great workout (and one that you can do on your own when you find yourself with no partner for the day).
But just like Daryl said, it is like comparing sprinting and running, or the proverbial apples and oranges. You may not be able to compare them in a totaly objective manner, but that does not deminish the fact that sprinting is still running, and an apple is still a fruit. You may prefer one more than the other, and there is ample room to debate the merits of one versus the other, but you can't debate that bouldering is a subset of the sport that does not have a quality unique and worthy in and of itself.

no.
even thought I'm an old guy, I enjoy bouldering.
bitd, bouldering was a training tool for cragging, and alpine pursuits. it's all good.

When you don't have a partner or money for gear, bouldering is totally rad, and you will defend that position.

When you have good partners and lots of gear you can go into another realm. A realm where you will find no other...just the birds (and maybe other climbers). Now you are climbing!

Tico - I'm not following you on how aid fits in with soloing/less toys/purity concept.

To me bouldering was originally a means to end as to developing greater contact and lock-off strength. Before gyms, it was the quickest way to develop strength for actual climbing. My first few years involved a weekly visit to Morrison where I'd run through a circuit and make a couple attempts on whatever problem was the latest project for me. It was amazing how a problem could could vex you for weeks or months, then all of a sudden get unlocked; and then repeating it became relatively easy, compared to the next project at least.

As for traversing, it is every bit as legit as anything else. I used to spend a lot of lunch hours at Observatory Park. Traversing a mere 20 liner feet there was as physically intense as any crimper route I ever did. In fact, when I was in the 4th or 5th thin move on a route and getting sketched, I'd mentally recall how where I was at still wasn't as intense as an OP traverse. Likewise, if you can't do a out and back (w/out a long rest at the end) on the Nautilus at least once you shouldn't call yourself strong.

Bouldering involves bursts of intensity combined with a calm mind and a superior sense of balance; probably why so many of those of you who enjoy the process of thrashing up a fissure with a 30 lb. rack (as opposed to the pursuit of gymnastic movement) find it anathema. The best climbers I knew enjoyed every aspect of climbing there is. Those who deride various forms of climbing as opposed to the one they believe is superior have issues. Probably got separated from mommy's tit just a little too soon.

Bouldering is the easiest way to find unclimbed stone, and create something for yourself. It is also the easiest way to get off by yourself away from the crowds. It is definitely not for those with ADHD.

Mike Lane wrote:Tico - I'm not following you on how aid fits in with soloing/less toys/purity concept.

My idea is that it's less a contrivance, that is a game you've created for yourself to play. When I free climb, I generally won't pull on gear, even when it would be more efficient (or I really, really want to). That's a rule I follow for no good reason but to enjoy a certain game. On aid, I'll do everything in my power, use every trick I have to simply go up. Alpine routes are similar for me, I'll pull on gear, use tools, whatever, to go up. No fake rules. Bouldering is similar, I'll do what it takes to top out, I just don't generally have any gear on me.

The failure in this theory could be when I pack, since I guess not taking hooks to go boulder or not taking a drill on any route is a contrivance.