Stand-start vs. Sit-start: It's Not the Size of the Wave, It's the Motion of the Ocean

If there's a sit-start to do, and you don't do it, have you done the full boulder? Is the "proper" start from an ass-on-the-ground position, or at least from the lowest possible starting holds? If you do a sit-start to a previously established problem, is it appropriate to give an entirely different name?

A notable example of this issue has come up recently with Vincent Pochon's ascent of a Fontainebleau line he dubbed "The Big Island." About two years earlier, Dave Graham claimed the first ascent of the same boulder problem, minus two or three beginning moves, and dubbed the line "The Island."

Following Pochon's ascent, some suggested that the difference between the two boulder problem versions was moot because the "proper start", from a sit, remained to be done. That version, from the ground, would amount to the fullest, most mature, complete version of the line.

For myself, I liked what I presume to be Pochon's aesthetic. Walk up to a boulder. With your feet on the ground, find the starting holds. Pull off the ground and climb to the top. Both ascents are admirable, but Pochon's vision of the line appeals to me more than Graham's.

I don't take sit-starts as "logical." Where a boulder starts is not written in stone. Where a boulder problem starts is determined by bouldering's history and cultural aesthetics, the things which shape our decisions as climbers. In short, we decide. And what I'm saying is, aesthetically, stand starts are more valuable than sit-starts. They are better!

Don't get me wrong. I love a good sit-start. But I like them the most when they're obvious, and, more importantly, when they complement the rest of the movement to follow. Too many first ascent hungry gym toads have developed the horrible habit of adding one single, powerful, finger-tweaker move into otherwise classic lines. Not only is this dubious criteria for a first ascent, it diminishes a former classic forever--particularly with the new ground-assisted sit-start is filmed and distributed willynilly over the internet. People watch the video and assume the shitty version is the only version.

Tweaker sit-start add-ons to otherwise classic lines should be explicitly devalued. Sure, they make the problem longer and harder. But as the saying goes, "It's not the size of the wave, it's the motion of ocean." Just because it got harder doesn't mean it got better.

Gym-bred climbers would do well to experiment with the now-nearly defunct practice of a stand-start. Just walk up to a rock, grab what's available, and climb. It is easier and more intuitive than scrunching into "boulder toad" position on the ground.

Moving over stone from a standing start just feels good.