Etiquette on renaming SDS

What’s everyone’s opinion on naming a SDS to an established climb something entirely different and new…..Lucid Dreaming for example was renamed, of sorts, after adding 2 moves into an established climb. Any other (famous) examples of SDS’s being ‘renamed’?   

Dude, check out Devils Lake, they rename climbs when they do it with different beta.

Tradibanwrote:

Dude, check out Devils Lake, they rename climbs when they do it with different beta.

Wisconsin isn’t real….actually, the entire Midwest seems kinda sus 

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

Wisconsin isn’t real….actually, the entire Midwest seems kinda sus 

Haha yea. The etiquette is you add “SDS” onto the existing name. No exceptions.

I think the "low" can warrant a separate name if it adds a significant amount of moves or a significant amount of difficulty to the "stand".  

Extra cool if the name pays homage to the original.  

One of my favorite examples of this is the naming of Pegasus (V16), the sit start to Pagan Poetry (V11) in Joe's.  Peg (like pagan) and -asus (like assis, the french word for sit/sat).  

As with most things, it depends. If a SDS doubles the length of the problem, a rename feels more justified than if a SDS adds just a move or two. Similarly, I have seen SDS added to established problems that add some contrived and low quality moves. If the movement added by the sit is high quality, I think a new name is more justified. 

Euro, Euro Roof Low, and Grand Illusion come to mind as a high profile example. 

Edit: Oop, Sam beat me to it. I definitely agree that paying homage is the rad thing to do. This also applies to aid climbs going free IMO

When you establish a sit start it doesn't overwrite the higher start, they both continue to be routes. So I wouldn't call this process "renaming" and I think that whoever FAs the sit start gets to decide what to call it.

Andrew Childwrote:

When you establish a sit start it doesn't overwrite the higher start, they both continue to be routes. So I wouldn't call this process "renaming" and I think that whoever FAs the sit start gets to decide what to call it.

Playing devil‘s advocate; so if you add a single extra move to an established bp, that lower start is now an entirely different climb and gets a new, different, separate name? Let’s say you have a 16 move problem and climb it but start with your right hand one move lower. Doesn’t really feel like an entirely new, separate problem that gets a brand new name does it? What if instead of a 2 handed start I take one hand and touch a foothold, comp style, and then proceed to climb the problem. I get to name it and label it a completely different name by your logic, right?

IMO this logic, in reverse order, is loosely why people are starting to climb climbs 1, 2, even 3 moves into climbs and claiming the original grade.

I agree with Cam and Sam, in that adding significance to a climb (whether that’s a plethora of moves or enhanced difficulty) warrants a new name to this lower start SO LONG as it pays homage to the actual climb named by the FA. Adding 2 moves to a climb and naming this lower start something completely irrelevant seems silly (and disrespectful) to me. 

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

Playing devil‘s advocate; so if you add a single extra move to an established bp, that lower start is now an entirely different climb and gets a new, different, separate name? Let’s say you have a 16 move problem and climb it but start with your right hand one move lower. Doesn’t really feel like an entirely new, separate problem that gets a brand new name does it? What if instead of a 2 handed start I take one hand and touch a foothold, comp style, and then proceed to climb the problem. I get to name it and label it a completely different name by your logic, right?

IMO this logic, in reverse order, is loosely why people are starting to climb climbs 1, 2, even 3 moves into climbs and claiming the original grade.

I agree with Cam and Sam, in that adding significance to a climb (whether that’s a plethora of moves or enhanced difficulty) warrants a new name to this lower start SO LONG as it pays homage to the actual climb named by the FA. Adding 2 moves to a climb and naming this lower start something completely irrelevant seems silly (and disrespectful) to me. 

Someone started a popular local V9 one hand hold lower and called it a V10 first ascent recently (it adds one easy move)

 
Luckily in climbing there are no rules. People have the freedom to start boulders however they want, call them what they want, and grade them what they want... But we also have the freedom to make fun of them for it!   

Sam Dwrote:

Someone started a popular local V9 one hand hold lower and called it a V10 first ascent recently (it adds one easy move)

That’s not how grading works. I hope that boulder receives less stars.

Luckily in climbing there are no rules. People have the freedom to start boulders however they want, call them what they want, and grade them what they want... But we also have the freedom to make fun of them for it!   

OP asked for “etiquette”, not rules. Of course there are no rules. ‘Murrica!!

Sam Dwrote:

Someone started a popular local V9 one hand hold lower and called it a V10 first ascent recently (it adds one easy move)

Gross

I think it’s kinda lame to rename a low start that doesn’t add a significant number of moves to the problem. 

C Gwrote:

I think it’s kinda lame to rename a low start that doesn’t add a significant number of moves to the problem. 

What’s “significant”?

See the problem?

Tradibanwrote:

What’s “significant”?

See the problem?

Lots of moves.

I feel like it should be an issue of proportion. If the stand start is 3 moves and the sit adds an additional 3 moves, that doubles the problem's length, despite not being "lots" of moves

Tradibanwrote:

What’s “significant”?

See the problem?

I feel like “significant” is no more, or less, subjective that grading routes.

In this situation, I think most could agree that “significant” means adding at least a grade of difficulty or more than a couple moves. 

Think less. Climb more.

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

I feel like “significant” is no more, or less, subjective that grading routes.

In this situation, I think most could agree that “significant” means adding at least a grade of difficulty or more than a couple moves.

I agree with your first statement. However, to the grade chasers any change is significant as their climbing “worth” is very much wrapped up in the numbers.

SDS, stand start, different beta, one extra move, one less move, etc are just variations and never deserve more than a comment or pic on the original route page. Without order there is chaos.

Tradibanwrote:

I agree with your first statement. However, to the grade chasers any change is significant as their climbing “worth” is very much wrapped up in the numbers.

Yes and no. If a V9 stand start later gets a SDS that adds 10ft of traversing V1 moves this boulder then this does not change the “worth” of the climb…aside from losing stars, presumably. 

SDS, stand start, different beta, one extra move, one less move, etc are just variations and never deserve more than a comment or pic on the original route page. Without order there is chaos.

In think we are saying the same thing, in regards to naming SDS. 

This thread pretty much crystallizes why most climbers roll their eyes at boulderers.  

Years ago I did a V1/V2-  inverted sit start on the Casual route, but I decided not to rename it.  

What the hell is an SDS?