Etiquette on renaming SDS

ubuwrote:

What the hell is an SDS?

Students for a Democratic Society

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

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. 

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

No, no, the “worth” of the climber is tied to the grade, not the climb. Adding V1 moves to a V9 obviously doesn’t make a significant difference and doesn’t warrant a name or grade change but to the grade chasers it does.

Why do any variation if you can’t get some recognition from it, such as an FA, a name change, or at least a number bump. That’s their thinking I think.

ubuwrote:

What the hell is an SDS?

Its a detergent (sodium dodecyl sulfafe, SDS) used in protein electrophoresis. Not sure what it has to do with climbing. Could be people use it to clean holds.

Mark Pilatewrote:

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.  

Cool story. Once you can climb V3 you might understand Mark, until then keep on string climbin’ on water with the rest of the weaklings   

Tradibanwrote:

No, no, the “worth” of the climber is tied to the grade, not the climb. Adding V1 moves to a V9 obviously doesn’t make a significant difference and doesn’t warrant a name or grade change but to the grade chasers it does.

Why do any variation if you can’t get some recognition from it, such as an FA, a name change, or at least a number bump. That’s their thinking I think.

I feel like you’re not trolling, but we are saying the same thing. Adding significantly easier moves to a hard climb doesn’t add “worth” and therefore grade chasers aren’t going to care about that version of the climb. To grade chasers the climb is the grade and the grade is the climb. The terms are synonymous. When I say it’s doesn’t add “worth” to the “climb”, to a grade chaser, this is because the grade wouldn’t change. My example was just using a lower start as an example since that’s what the OP mentioned. 

Cory Bwrote:

Its a detergent (sodium dodecyl sulfafe, SDS) used in protein electrophoresis. Not sure what it has to do with climbing. Could be people use it to clean holds.

This is going to tungsten oxygen oxygen oxygen sulfur hydrogen over most dirtbags.

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)

Someone did this here in OR recently as well. I think it’s clearly a case for editorial discretion, which you used to get with guidebooks—the author would have every right to omit the “V10” or to move the start to whatever the consensus had become. You don’t tend to get that on MP because it’s a free for all, and many of the contributions come from climbers who lack the perspective to do it themselves.

As for the etiquette, I think it’s up to the FA. I personally think it’s boring to just append “Sit” to an existing name, but sometimes you look at a sequence and think, “That didn’t really change anything, it’s just the sit now.” Other times it completely changes the feel of the climb, or the ascent is significant, as with Lucid Dreaming. Ultimately it’s just an aesthetic choice akin to any writing or editing decision.

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

Cool story. Once you can climb V3 you might understand Mark, until then keep on string climbin’ on water with the rest of the weaklings   

V3 ?!  Hell,  I ain’t got that much time to train!  

But I get it.  People want credit for the vision.  And like me, if you spend the majority of your sesh contemplating the problem lying prostrate in the dirt, you get to see those possibilities materialize lower on the climb

amariuswrote:

This is going to tungsten oxygen oxygen oxygen sulfur hydrogen over most dirtbags.

Lots of quips, but, seriously, what is SDS?

Cory Bwrote:

Its a detergent (sodium dodecyl sulfafe, SDS) used in protein electrophoresis. Not sure what it has to do with climbing. Could be people use it to clean holds.

Quite honestly, as a former proteomics guy, that was why I was wondering....

Marc801 Cwrote:Lots of quips, but, seriously, what is SDS?

SDS = Sit Down Start…ffs Marc

Dan Schmidt wrote:

As for the etiquette, I think it’s up to the FA.

FA of the first line climbed, in this case the stand start, or FA of the lower start?

Other times it completely changes the feel of the climb, or the ascent is significant, as with Lucid Dreaming. 

Significant; sure…but with Lucid Dreaming THE move was still the start if Rastaman Vibrations. At least the move off the pinch that was highlighted in RR was definitely the first move of Rastaman iirc. Another point that might be worth mentioning in that case is that Lucid Dreaming was also never called the “lucid dreaming project” for example. It was always known as the sit/low start to Rastaman Vibration fwiw

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

SDS = Sit Down Start…ffs Marc

FA of the first line climbed, in this case the stand start, or FA of the lower start?

I was thinking the FA of the lower start, since that's the new line. Again, the issue is really with publishing and editing — no one else is obligated to call the line by that name, or even to do precisely the same line. We talk about how that's the standard, but that's not the reality: people give dumb names and wrong grades to bad new climbs all the time, and they're basically ignored. In the guidebook era, the author could and often would execute some editorial discretion, least push back, or maybe just leave a snide comment in the book. On Mountain Project, stuff gets made fun of in the comments, re-graded in the ticklist, etc. and the original line morphs into something more acceptable by the community. (Though in the case of MP, there's the opacity and oft-un-seriousness of the moderators to deal with; the level of pride and involvement is a lot lower than you get from a guidebook author.)

Significant; sure…but with Lucid Dreaming THE move was still the start if Rastaman Vibrations. At least the move off the pinch that was highlighted in RR was definitely the first move of Rastaman iirc. Another point that might be worth mentioning in that case is that Lucid Dreaming was also never called the “lucid dreaming project” for example. It was always known as the sit/low start to Rastaman Vibration fwiw

Well, Paul decided to call it Lucid Dreaming and the name stuck. The FA made the call, and the community basically agreed that's the better line and an iconic name, so it's not going anywhere.

As you said the Lucid start was known about for a long time. From what little development I've done or been privy to, I know that type of situation happens all the time: you log the higher start because that's the most defensible line you could complete at the time before your buddies, but you kinda know from the beginning that the "real" line is the lower start.

Dan Schmidtwrote:

I was thinking the FA of the lower start, since that's the new line. 

Idk, I think you could easily argue it is not a new line, but rather an extension…therefore, the name should also be an extension….or at least not an entirely new. 

Again, the issue is really with publishing and editing — no one else is obligated to call the line by that name, or even to do precisely the same line. We talk about how that's the standard, but that's not the reality: people give dumb names and wrong grades to bad new climbs all the time, and they're basically ignored. In the guidebook era, the author could and often would execute some editorial discretion, least push back, or maybe just leave a snide comment in the book. On Mountain Project, stuff gets made fun of in the comments, re-graded in the ticklist, etc. and the original line morphs into something more acceptable by the community. (Though in the case of MP, there's the opacity and oft-un-seriousness of the moderators to deal with; the level of pride and involvement is a lot lower than you get from a guidebook author.)

Sure. I am not getting that deep. I’m just curious about what people think the ethic/etiquette should be regarding lower starts and the naming process….

Well, Paul decided to call it Lucid Dreaming and the name stuck. The FA made the call, and the community basically agreed that's the better line and an iconic name, so it's not going anywhere.

   I don’t disagree, but not my point. My point, with this example, and many others is if that should have been the case. If Paul had named it something that was a play off of Rastaman Vibrations (like Sleepwalker and ROTSW or Pagan Poetry and Pegasus) I’m sure it would have stuck as well AND the original line would have gotten some recognition. My annoyance with this particular scenario is that 90% of climbers probably don’t even realize that Lucid Dreaming is an extension and/or don’t even know Rastaman Vibrations exist, even though the captivating move is Rastaman Vibrations. I guess, my bigger annoy is that there is no mention of that climb (by Paul or anyone else) in any of the mini-docs about Lucid Dreaming. I don’t care too much, but I, bored at work and kinda annoys me  

As you said the Lucid start was known about for a long time.

Which means it was referred to as something in regards to Rastaman for the better part of a decade lol like I said, it wasn’t referred to as Lucid Dreaming until almost 10 years after Rastaman was already established. 

From what little development I've done or been privy to, I know that type of situation happens all the time: you log the higher start because that's the most defensible line you could complete at the time before your buddies, but you kinda know from the beginning that the "real" line is the lower start.

That is correct…and typically the “real” line with a lower start is often called “original line sds” or something paying homage to the original line such as the examples listed above.

Either way, you’re getting real deep into this, you could have just said you’re in favor of completely changing the name of the FA deems it appropriate  

Sam Dwrote:

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).  

Agree with this, and the discussion in the post above regarding Lucid/Rastaman. There's so much potential for a cool name to the sit start that riffs on the Rastaman Vibration name, and it doing so pays respect to the original and also clearly establishes it's relationship to the original. Its a way to add to the original without overwriting it.

An example I really like in Rifle is the variation/extension to Living in Fear, named Living The Dream. Also nearby is the extension to Simply Read, named Simply Redlined. These are sport climbing variations rather than a bouldering sit start, but same idea. They are clever name riffs that give a nod to the original line.

Another bouldering one is The Island and the lower start The Big Island. Unfortunately this got ruined with the lowest start, Soudain Seul. IMO from the peanut gallery, it should have been named The Biggest Island. 

Another can of worms to unpack is re-naming a named project after it's been done.  A local example was a longstanding undone boulder nicknamed the "Midday Lightning" project.  It was finally done a couple years ago, but named "Bang Out of Order" to a lot of our confusion.  

I vaguely remember Sharma or someone else in Spain re-naming a long standing named project after getting the FA.  Over there it's commonplace for the person who bolted it to name it, not the person to actually climb it first.  

All-in-all, the rock does not care what we call it and what's most important is the quality of the climb/problem itself.  For me, the naming has next to nothing to do with the enjoyment of the climb.  

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

SDS = Sit Down Start…ffs Marc

Oh. That absurdity. As if bouldering isn't contrived enough as it is.

OH... SDS = Sit Down Start... FFS...

Wrong forum, move this to the bouldering forum.

Desert Rock Sportswrote:

OH... SDS = Sit Down Start... FFS...

Wrong forum, move this to the bouldering forum.

It has turned into a bouldering discussion, despite it's applicability to sport climbing extensions...Unfortunately admin will continue to leave it in the general forum and continue to keep it an utter mess.

Isn’t “sit down start” annoyingly redundant?

Next LDS