Writing about a sport like bouldering is an attempt to understand a subject that is constantly reconfiguring its own markers. It is therefore necessary to be careful in defining and explaining its parameters, which should not prevent any attempt to establish a few guidelines that have modulated its evolution. We should also keep in mind that, with the exception of a few instructive books, such as The Fundamentals of Routesetting,1 very little information is available on the history of routesetting. Considering our fondness for bouldering, it is this discipline that will draw our attention in the present article.
If we wish to explain the history of routesetting, we must first establish the point of origin of the concept. Routesetting exists mainly as an action, that of putting holds on a climbing wall in order to create problems to be solved (and climbed!). It can be understood at a personal, commercial or competitive level, all shaping it differently. Of course, this leads us to ask some basic questions: can this concept of routesetting exist at the individual level, or does it needs to be performed for an audience? In other words, if I put holds on my personal wall for my training, is it still routesetting? Perhaps. On the other hand, routesetting must exist in a public space (commercial or competitive) in order to allow for constructive criticism and an appreciation of its evolution over time. One can not deny that its origin comes from the personal training walls, but it was at a time when the line between the training and the routesetting was rather blurred; we did not understand the routesetting as routesetting per say, we did it by default to train.
Performing this action is intrinsically linked to a culture and to a sport that is beginning to find its landmarks in international and commercial competitions. One could make a list of each bouldering competition in the last 20 years and compare the changes in terms of routesetting between each one, but we would miss the essence of what it represents for bouldering. What we really want to understand are changes in culture, attitudes and philosophy towards it, as well as their impact on the evolution of the world of commercial or competitive climbing. In simpler terms, we will ask the following question: how did modern routesetting become what it is today. In the first place, we need to explain the culture that has laid the foundations for routesetting (while keeping in mind the counterculture that has fiercely responded to it). Then we will see the evolution of the competitions themselves, from the first in the mid-1980s to the modern world cup circuit. Lastly, we will use these two parts to erect and explain the concept of routesetting through its regional characteristics, styles and purposes. In the end, if we want to have a serious discussion about routesetting, we need to look elsewhere, as routesetting can not exist without the competitive or commercial world. It is therefore by deepening our knowledge of these different cultures that we will be able to understand the history of routesetting and its trajectory so far.
An Evolving Culture
Culture has been defined in several ways, but most simply it is understood as a behavior learned and shared by a community of individuals in relation to each other.2 If the first serious boulderers began to push the sport it in the middle of 20th century, we had to wait until the 1970s before noticing a major increase in terms of difficulty. John Gill, probably the first to specialize and encourage the discipline of bouldering in America, was focusing on controlled dynamic movements, by choice and necessity.3 If this seems insignificant now, this type of movement was the complete opposite of the fine and precise style of climbing originating from Europe. Even through the 1980s, the climbing world usually looked at these boulderers with contempt.
John Gill et son front lever à un bras.
Even worse than the boulderers who disrespected European refinement and the traditional spirit of climbing, there were climbing competitions which, according to the purists, completely distorted the sport. Several influential French climbers went as far as writing a manifesto denouncing competitions since “they were going to kill the spirit of the sport”. These climbers, who will later be called “the last anarchists”, have not been able to stop the powerful wave that was about to break into the world of climbing. This new discipline, bouldering, was slowly establishing itself as one of the pillars in a world of climbing in complete change. Climbers like Jim Holloway established new problems up to V12 in the 1970s. This search for difficulty as the ultimate goal of climbing certainly did not stop there.
Jim Holloway doing what he did best, establising hard first ascents.
This culture of “difficulty at all costs” was taking more and more place, to the dismay of the more traditional climbers. But why, if we want to understand the history and concept of routesetting, are we talking first of all about a change in the culture of climbing? The answer lies at this precise moment in time: in the 1980s, this climbing culture had evolved to the point where, if athletes wanted to push the boundaries of the human body as a whole, they could not avoid training. In order to push these boundaries, it was then necessary to be able to climb regardless of weather conditions, and create all the possible movements in a controlled environment. It was in a way the birth of routesetting. Holloway, speaking of his climbing habits, recalled: “We were serious about the climbing but never let it get in the way of a good time.”4 A decade later, the best climbers spent most of their time training hard, whereas the fun usually came second.
To understand the mentality of the 1990s, the specific case of the School Room in Sheffield (England) is very interesting. Acting as a sort of microcosm of the bouldering world at this time, the School Room was also the embryo of a community focused on difficulty and competition. The two most prominent climbers of their generation in the UK, Ben Moon and Jerry Moffatt, began taking their training more seriously in 1984. They nailed pieces of wood on panels of the same material to create problems. Routesetting, at that moment, served as a training tool, and it existed almost by default. However, their practices have strongly influenced the trends for routesetting at this time. In other words, the style of problems they were setting: very fingery, powerful, and usually dynamic, would lay the foundation for routesetting trends in the first bouldering competitions. Moffat was inspired by the legendary German Wolfgang Gullich for this type of training. The world of training, at this embryonic moment, was pushed by elite climbers who were feeding off each other. It is thus, in a sense, at that moment that the world of bouldering met the competition culture.
En 1993, le School Room naissait et allait rapidement devenir l’endroit de prédilection pour les grimpeurs les plus forts d’Angleterre. D’ailleurs, les Jerry Moffatt, Ben Moon et Malcolm Smith de ce monde étaient très compétitifs. Au fils des années, des dizaines de problèmes, tous documentés, allaient être créés sur le mur du School Room. On leur donnait des noms et on pratiquait les mouvements durant des heures. C’était la recherche de la perfection. En quelque sorte, il s’agissait d’un retour à l’esprit de l’escalade plus traditionnelle, mais adaptée à des mouvements exceptionnellement difficiles. Certains de ces problèmes sont restés sur le mur du School Room sans voir une seule répétition même après 15 ans. On commençait à comprendre l’utilité d’une discipline comme le bloc, et on apprivoisait rapidement les différentes possibilités techniques. Il est difficile de prétendre que cette salle, sa communauté et sa culture furent à l’origine du routesetting tel qu’on le connait aujourd’hui. Par contre, on peut facilement reconnaitre un changement de culture et d’approche incarnée par le School Room ayant par la suite façonné le routesetting. Voici un exemple de l’un des problèmes les plus difficiles, Perky Pinky.
Lastly, it should not be forgotten that the competitive spirit would soon push the creative limits of these climbers, thus allowing the School Room to act like a laboratory. At this moment, they tested the limits of the possible: they played around with different holds and combination and learned to recreate movements found outside. It was, therefore, a time when routesetting was no longer merely a tool for training, but also a vehicle for creativity and aestheticism (only with regard to movements, at this point, since the room in question was not the most inspiring).
COMPETITION & CULTURE
The first international climbing competition,”Sportroccia”, was organized in 1985 in Italy. Well anchored in rock climbing culture, the competition took place on a natural climbing wall. Although this new type of event attracted a large number of spectators as well as significant media attention, the non-viability of an outdoor climbing competition would soon be felt. Indeed, it was impossible to change the routes and, above all, if we wanted to accommodate a growing number of spectators, the impact on nature would have been devastating.
A few high-profile climbers like Patrick Edlinger et Ben Moon participating in the SportRoccia in 1985.
As early as 1986, the French climbing federation organized the first climbing competition on an artificial wall. At that time, there was no climbing holds manufacturer since it was still a marginal industry. Therefore, in addition to setting routes, routesetters had to create the holds with malleable materials and sand. If, today, the organization of a competition seems pretty simple, it was much more complex and difficult to coordinate at the time. Reinhold Scherer, one of the first routesetter in Austria, recalls that during one of the first competitions, the wall turned out 10 degrees steeper than anticipated. The routesetting team had to reset all the routes that would have been too difficult otherwise.
At that time bouldering took more and more place as a distinct discipline, but it was not before 1998 that the first bouldering competition was organized. There was a great contrast between the competitors who had been training together for almost 10 years, and the style of routesetting they were offered. Since these were the first competitions, the routesetters adhered to a type of climbing very similar to route competitions. As described earlier, it was a style that promoted small holds and precise movements with an emphasis on body position. Quickly, it became evident that to crown the best climber, routesetter needed also adapt their work to competitors. The climbers were so strong that it was difficult to separate them only by proposing a style of pure strength. New elements started to be considered and used: difficult reading, precariousness of movements, random movements, and coordination, among others. Thus, at the beginning of the 2000s, a slow change was taking place which would lead competitive routesetting to take a totally different form in 2016. Some will even say that this type of modern routesetting is moving away from the essence of bouldering. Does that remind you of something ? Indeed, bouldering can’t escape the cyclical nature of life. We will try to explain this modern routesetting in the last part.
MODERN ROUTESETTING
So far, we have discussed two important elements: the ever-evolving climbing culture since the early boulderers in the 1950s, and the evolution of climbing competitions (both in terms of substance and form) since The 1980s. Now that it becomes clearer that routesetting, now an integral part of the bouldering world, existed only by default thirty years ago, we will attempt to explain the peculiarities inherent in the concept which stem from the two preceding parts. We will focus on regional characteristics, style and usefulness of routesetting nowadays. It should also be noted that the following observations are mine, and often only generalizations; many exceptions exist.
A picture is worth a thousand words, so here are some videos to compare the style of routesetting in time. The first video comes from a competition in the United States in 2003, and the other presents the World Cup competitions, mostly in Europe, in 2015.
2003:
2016:
It should be noted at the outset that the routesetting style is completely different. Even if we set aside the aesthetic of the problems, the style remains very distinct from one video to the other. In the first, there is an emphasis on finger strength, raw power and very physical movements. In the second, we note the ubiquity of volumes which add a certain mystery in the understanding of the problems. Also, the problems proposed to the climbers foster more variables: strength, flexibility and creativity. Obviously, these two examples represent the two extremes on a spectrum of style, but they help us understand the evolution of the sport. Thus, in the modern era of bouldering competitions, competitors will rely on an ability to read complex sequences, body positions difficult to understand from the ground, as well as on both coordination and random movements.
Although the competitive routesetting style has evolved, the differences remain obvious when we compare, for example, the Americans to the Europeans. This is a classic comparison in the climbing world, but it is almost inevitable because of their totally distinct essence. One could even, if desired, compare the style of routesetting between the different countries of Europe to find some differences. We will, however, stick to the two continents for the sake of our argument.
In Europe, technique is paramount. A problem usually consists of 4 to 8 movements. They require precise body positions, the use of bad footholds and of course a valorization of the latter at the expense of handholds compensation. Many volumes are used, changing the angles of the wall, making it possible to create complex, random and sensitive sequences. Thus, these problems rely on a well-developed climbing technique over strength. In recent years, Europeans have tried to push the limits of routesetting with the creation of new movements and new sequences. Years after years, these routesetters combine sequences of movements which, 20 years ago, would probably not have been understood by the competitors. When we think we’ve seen everything in climbing, Europeans have the uncanny ability to come up spectacular new movements, and the effect is most dramatic when it is showcased in a World Cup final. They focus on the complexity of a problem rather than the endurance required to complete it. It is also important to note that European climbers have dominated the international scene for 15 years.
In the United States, routesetters usually rely on physical fatigue to make a climber fall. Thus, it is not unusual to deal with a problem of more than 10 movements, where the holds are comfortable, in the right angle, where the feet are in the right place and where the complexity of the movements is relegated to the the backburner. We notice very steep walls and big footholds that allow mistakes on the side of the competitors. When the movements are physically difficult, they are not very complex to understand. In this type of competition, climbers fall because of constant fatigue rather than because of a precarious position or a poorly understood sequence.
Both styles have their merits, but it is clear that the European style promotes creativity and allows a faster evolution of routesetting in general. The american style often tries to force spectacular movements using bad holds. On the old continent, even if routesetters try to force a movement, they will usually propose sequences allowing alternative solutions. While it may be difficult to understand the difference, we can say this: while Europeans have been pushing the limits of movements and sequences of movements, Americans have been setting “360s” on pockets for 20 years. With the democratization of bouldering as well as a certain globalization of routesetting, in the sense that the routesetters travel and exchange ideas, we note that the influences intersect from one country to another. Still, it remains obvious when the Americans try to imitate the European style. Again, it must be understood that this is a generalization; many American setters do not fall in this category. Also, we can see that the trends seem to be changing towards a more technical routesetting, which is definitely encouraging.
A few pictures of the lastest World Cup bouldering championship held in Paris. Photos by Yann Golev.
Recently, Peter Dixon, a high-profile American setter and climber, suggested the following:
What I propose is that American setting trends could be a reflection of how we see and interact with our world. One could correlate that the comfortable ergonomic movements and flow of American setting could reflect the comfort that Americans strive to achieve, i.e. the comfortable house, car, or job. The flashy moves of our setting could also reflects the glamor and instant gratification hungered after by our culture. The steepness and grade bias towards brute physical strength could reflect our deep roots in the belief that the strong will survive and those with the bigger guns will dictate the rules. Could also the fact that we set with large footholds reflect the idea that we hold on to the belief that we are in control, that we like if not need to feel secure? And lastly, might it be that we set long sustained problems to satisfy the ingrained mentality that working long and hard at something is the only way to get ahead in life?5
Dixon certainly makes an interesting point. Beyond his argument on the specific case of the Americans, what Dixon proposes is that the style of routesetting is heavily influenced by the history, culture and socio-political reality of his country. If this is the case, it would be interesting to verify his hypothesis with analyses of other countries such as France or Germany. Or, perhaps, too much importance is attached to what routesetting represents. After all, we as routesetters only put climbing holds on walls, maybe we should not take ourselves too seriously. But, from a historical point of view, it is a proposition that remains very interesting and that probably holds some truth.
Finally, after having exaplained a change of culture, as well as the trajectory of competitions since 1986, it seems clearer that the concept and action of routesetting are at the heart of the evolution of bouldering. It remains difficult to predict the future tangents on which the sport will evolve in the coming decades. On the other hand, for the attentive observer, there is no doubt that we are moving in a direction that favors the most complete climbers to the strongest climbers. Moreover, with the prominence of social media, it is now easy to see the culture of routesetting growing on a daily basis. The conditions under which routesetting can now evolve are totally different. If one spoke of the School Room as a sort of laboratory, now every bouldering facility is a laboratory in itself with the means to publish its contribution daily via social networks. There are even some places, such as the Karma facility in Fontainebleau, where a climbing program is funded by the French state to support the national climbing team. This includes the hiring of one of the best routesetters on the international circuit, Jacky Godoffe, who devotes the majority of his time to designing new challenges to train the team. That is a real laboratory! We are far from the dusty cellars where the strong climbers met after work to aspire to great performances thirty years ago…
1 Louie Anderson. The Fundamentals of Routesetting (Wolvering Publishing: New Castle, 2014),.
2 Useem, J., & Useem, R. Human Organizations 22 (Automne 1963).
3 D’ailleurs, son article The Art of Bouldering publié dans le American Alpine Club Journal en 1969 est l’une des pièce maîtresse dans la conceptualisation et définition de la discipline du bloc.
4 “The Complete Jim Holloway Interview,” Climbing, accédé le 25 octobre 2016. http://www.climbing.com/news/the-complete-jim-holloway-interview/
5 “Are We Just Thugs?,” Mad Rock Blog, accédé le 28 octobre 2016. https://madrockblog.com/2016/10/27/are-we-just-thugs/
