Talk:History of rock climbing

Climbing Start‑class High‑importance

	Climbing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climbing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climbing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ClimbingWikipedia:WikiProject ClimbingTemplate:WikiProject ClimbingClimbing articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

History of Rock climbing

Hmmm. 3rd and 4th free ascents of the Nose - hardly notable. Ratagonia 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page has a bit too much rubbish. It's very hard to navigate, especially when there are lots of useless facts everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.39.80 (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the grades ascribed to certain boulder problems in the 1960's and 1970's are way off the mark. John Gill did not climb anything harder than V5 or V6 in his prime and Further it is laughable to call jim Holloway's boulder problems V13 and V11. Bouldering at that level did not arrive until the early 1990's. Also worth noting is that the page ascribes V grades to climbs that were done prior to the creation of the V scale, Since this is a historic discussion, the grades that the Gill and Holloway gave the climbs should be listed first and the comparable V grade given parenthetically. In general these historical benchmarks seem a bit random. For example leaving out the achievements of Spanish climbers of the past 10 years is unjustifiable in that they did more to establish the upper 5.14 and lower 5.15 grades than any other group of climbers. Also note that only one woman makes this list of historic benchmarks. This benchmarks don't really work as a way of tracing the historical developments of the different types of climbing. This article needs a great deal more work. -Douglas Hunter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.88.247 (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug - welcome aboard. Grab yourself a wiki-name and roll up your sleeves. This is why entries should be tied to a citation or two. Then the merits of the source can be debated. For instance, while 'Big Wall' is interesting etc, it is self-published by Deuce, therefore does not qualify as a WP:RS. etc. Ratagonia (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your statements about Spanish climbers and, especially, women climbers. Those kinds of entries should be welcomed. About bouldering, great job of putting the old men in their place! I take it you have climbed Meathook and downgraded it. I always thought it was a trivial exercise when I looked at it. Lots of info available on the internet about it . . . Jolly good show, Doug! Aztecgirl (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I notice that the grades ascribed to certain boulder problems in the 1960's and 1970's are way off the mark. John Gill did not climb anything harder than V5 or V6 in his prime and Further it is laughable to call jim Holloway's boulder problems V13 and V11. Bouldering at that level did not arrive until the early 1990's." One should read up on bouldering history before making such confident statements about standards. Silentrunner (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Notable Climbers

Anyone have any objection to changing "List of notable rock climbers" to "List of distinguished rock climbers" ? This list should be a subset of List of climbers. Silentrunner 04:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to clean this up a bit, alphabetize and add to list, etc. Hopefully not offend anyone. Silentrunner 04:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought I have placed the list of rock climbers here, at least temporarily. This should be simply a subset of the more complete List of climbers, and perhaps it doesn't need to be in this article, particularly since it doesn't fit into an informative narrative of the subject. At the present this article is merely a collection of benchmarks that should be woven into a more complete analysis of the history of the sport. If you feel strongly that this list should be reinserted in the article, please do so, with rationale. If it were to go back in, it should be redesigned and include not only many more prominent rock climbers of the past and present, but more information on each entry, tying that climber into a historical context. Silentrunner 18:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, why here? First off, ANY climber noted on Wiki is "notable", or they should not be listed. Therefore, this list sees silly. Where to draw the line. my friend Dave did a first ascent - does that make him notable. Yabo was a notable climber - but little will be found on him in print. Notable? As a climber - interesting. As a wikipedian - this is a non-wiki thing. Take it to a personal webpage if you want. Ratagonia 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. There seems to be no interest in the list so I'm deleting it. Apologies to whoever designed it. Silentrunner

Link to American Rock

The link in the sources and notes sections links to the Wikipedia article "American Rock," when I think it should probably link to the book being referenced too. I'm not sure where that link is, so I couldn't change it. Ohthelameness 23:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Additions need sourcing. Also, only the most noteworthy ascents should be noted. Ratagonia (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my justification: This page is far too dependent on this "Big Wall" source, which is why we get things like "Comici... Pretty much the inventor of big wall climbing" which is a complete lie, so what is to stop the rest of that article being untrue? Another half-truth is that "Pierre Allain championed bouldering at Fontainebleau" in the 1930s, ignoring the fact that it had been in development in other parts of Europe, especially Britain, since the 1880s. Therefore I will delete evereything I find to be exaggerated or just bullshit because obviously you continentals can't be trusted to paint an accurate picture of history, even if it's just the history of mountaineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.177.229 (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's appealing to see your countrymen as a pioneers of mountaineering at the expense of other countries but the more you delude yourself by adding credibility to your claims with Wikipedia, the more it's going to hurt when you're forced to realize the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.177.229 (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having doubts [need help]

G'day all. I hope I do this correcty by adding a section. As a climber, with 30+ years of experience under my belt, I came across the note stating "* 1910 : Willo Welzenbach creates the standard numerical rating system for the amount of time typically needed to complete a route (Grades I to VI) [5]". I'm having serious doubts about this, but the external link this is refering to isn't the clearest of articles. Fact of the matter is that Welzenbach was only 10 years of age in 1910, so I assume this note needs transplanting into the 1919's. User talk:Qwrk

Thanks . . . looked it up and corrected it!Silentrunner (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "8000 bc"?

Section Some historical benchmarks: what is "8000 bc"? From the context it is not a time, 8000 BC. --Mortense (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's mangled. It was apparently added as:

*8000 BC: A ladder is depicted in a Mesolithic rock painting that is at least 10,000 years old, depicted in a cave in Valencia, Spain. Thus began the pragmatic irrelevance of climbing things without a ladder.[1]

That irreverent text may have been been inspired by this second-hand source:

Eva Crane's The Archaeology of Beekeeping states that humans began hunting for honey at least 10,000 years ago. She evidences this with a cave painting in Valencia, Spain. The painting is a Mesolithic rock painting, showing two female honey-hunters collecting honey and honeycomb from a wild bee hive. The two women are depicted in the nude, carrying baskets, and using a long wobbly ladder in order to reach the wild nest. [2]

While I don't doubt that this is true, climbing ladders is not really rock climbing. I'm going to delete the text. Will Beback talk 22:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Yaniro at The City

In the early or mid 1980's he did an overhang at the City Of Rocks in Idaho. I'm not sure the route is named. It's on an off limits rock there now. A finger crack on a roof. One of the hardest routes ever till the time. Like 5.13c --66.41.154.0 (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent History

Why stop at the 1990's? Why not landmarks from the last decade and a half? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.136.47 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently leading the "historical benchmarks".

"14th century AD: The Anasazis in the southwest United States drilled holes for posts and carved steps up the steep rock cliffs in Chaco Canyon. There are cliff dwellings scattered throughout the southwest. Given the difficult approaches to some of these cliff dwellings it seems reasonable to assume that the natives had the skills necessary to ascend what would now be considered technical climbing terrain"

It seems reasonable, to me, to assume that this, unreferenced, contribution is not concerned with climbing. It seems reasonable, to me, to delete it without delay. So I did.

The, still remaining, task of providing references to the remainder of the article appears to be so large that it might, in itself, be a landmark in climbing history, and whoever accomplishes this task thereby becomes notable and worthy of inclusion in the article.

AnnaComnemna (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]