So we’ve got a lot to deal with here – the price of being so lazy and letting everything pile up while we recouperated from those two unflattering comments plus all that Cinch bullshit. But Rebecca Havemeyer revived us. Back to work!
We have to talk about the New York Times again.
A few days ago a non-buildering professional attempted a third ascent of the Times building. He only went up to like the 10th floor, and had some banner about Osama or maybe Obama, no one is sure. To dissuade further attempts, the Times is pulling down the fancy pants renzo piano tubes that make it such a temptation. Good. Buildering a tall building that’s made out of a ladder should really only be a one-time thing, a feat of exhibitionism and gall rather than technical skill. It was dumb to follow Alain Robert, but we were cool with it then, because the second guy did it just a few hours later and he wore Miuras– a house favorite!
So take note, no more copycat buildering the Times. Of course, who can blame those nyc climbers? A hearty “meh” to this central park choss pile…
Then again, we love on McKinney so maybe we shouldn’t talk.
But speaking of two move lowballs, Climbing/Urban Climber is featuring a cute essay on the matter this week, by one Justin Roth…
On one end of things, you have the mountain expedition. Achieving the summit by hook or by crook is the name of the game. And there is purity in this — whatever strength and ingenuity you have is put to the cause of reaching the top (and descending) safely. On the other, smaller end, you have the lowball. Its purity comes in an entirely different form. It takes the idea of contrivance to its extreme….
Lowballs often use rules to create the challenge: the arête or the big foot block is off, or only the lowest line of holds on the traverse may be used. Absurd. But in this absurdity something pure is revealed — something present in all climbs that we sometimes forget: climbing is a bold act of arbitrariness.
