Talk:Bouldering

Photo

I have just changed the photo since the previous one does not show the details of a person bouldering. More details can be seen, i.e. shoes, crash pads, taped fingers, and chalky hands.

Question

Just a question. I had previously inserted the following photograph into the 'Bouldering' article and it was deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rockclimbing.JPG

I can understand why it was replaced as the main image, since the other photograph is a better example of bouldering, but surely this one has its merits. The person in the photo is most certainly bouldering (he is only about 3 metres above the ground, despite the trick photography that suggests otherwise).
What does everybody else think? Is there a place for this photograph further down in the article? Because what he is doing is certainly not rockclimbing! Ackatsis 06:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the editor who removed the image. I removed it because the photo gives no sense of bouldering as the angle from which it is taken looks as if he is free soloing a mammoth cliff! I'd suggest that this image is not clear enough in the context of bouldering to merit a place in the article as it could well confuse people who read the article and then see a photo that looks as if it is taken at a great height. That's my 2 cents - it's still a cool photo, just don't think it helps this article. Martin Hinks 10:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That picture of a person "bouldering" at Hanging Rock does not depict the sport of bouldering; the "climber" is wearing street shoes and apparently no chalk-bag, and not engaging in what would be regarded as bouldering moves. The Saint-Just photo (featuring bouldering moves, climbing shoes, and crash-mat) is an accurate representation of the sport (though if it featured a spotter and visible chalk-bag it would be better). The Hanging Rock picture is pleasant but it doesn't belong here; I think it should be removed. Rwxrwxrwx 12:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed....maybe if we could show a picture of a climber canvassing up a small boulder with the crash pad in view, and wearing a chalk bag, that would be better. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 09:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, Image:Rockclimbing.JPG does show a boudering climber. I put the St Just picture. I am sorry about the chalk bag, but neither my son (on the picture) nor me use chalk when we climb. That is why you cannot see it. Romary 13:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ropes?

We appear to have conflicting statements, the first line of the article: "Bouldering is a type of rock climbing undertaken without a rope..." and then we have a Gear->Ropes section saying that ropes used to be used occasionally. I was under the impression that once you put on a harness and tie into a rope, you are no longer bouldering, you are top-roping, as the risk of falling is part of the sport. I don't know that much about the history of the sport though, so I thought it would be best to see what everyone else thinks. - Robogymnast 03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bouldering does require top-ropes to practice really high-ball problems such as the Peabodies in Buttermilks, Bishop, CA. It is still a part of bouldering equipment since it is used to preview/practice dangerously high bouldering problems. Rsriprac 01:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Pens 40 bouldering image

A climber bouldering at Horse Pens 40 in Steele, Alabama.

I'm not really a fan of this image in the article. It doesn't really contribute anything - the climber's face is obscured (which, whilst not immediately damning to the photo's usefulness, just looks amateurish to me) and the climber (to my completely inexperience eye, at least) doesn't appear to have any of the normal bouldering equipment. It just looks as if somebody climbed two metres up a cliff-face, took a photo and tried to pass it off as bouldering. Of course, these are just my humble impressions, and I really don't know much about the sport at hand, so I decided to check if I'm in the minority on this before I considered removing the photo. The French photo (showing the crash pad) is a much better indication of bouldering, I think.
Any thoughts? Ackatsis 09:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, he's not even wearing climbing shoes! Rwxrwxrwx 14:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Due to a... er, overwhelming show of support, I'm now going to remove the suspect image. If anybody still has any problems, take it up with me here. Cheers! Ackatsis 12:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]