THE LIST

Lists.

We love them. Creating them, debating them, perfecting them.

Several of my friends and colleagues have created lists of the hardest boulder problems in specific areas such as Colorado, North Carolina and even the entire US. While these lists are fascinating in their own right, they cannot functionally be appreciated by 99.9% of climbing community. After all, unless you've done these problems, debating which of five V14s is hardest is little more than moot speculation.

Without trying to sound cliche, my personal mission in climbing has always been to climb the BEST problems wherever i went. I am a self-professed rock snob. Friends have often jeered me for my extreme position:

"Come on, get on it. It's actually a pretty fun problem!"

"Lincoln Woods isn't that bad...there's lots of great boulders!"

"Does climbing get any better than European Human Being?"

Though Andre probably no longer agrees with that last sentiment, the point as that most climbers are not as discerning as me. Don't get me wrong, I've climbed my fair share of 1 and 2 star boulders (we'll get to that in a minute), but i predominantly stick to the mega classics; instead of trying to "climb an area out", I have climbed the best problems in a boulder field and then moved on to other areas.

A potential 5 star problem?

So how does one decide which problems are BEST? which deserve more "stars" than others? Earlier this year, Jaime wrote a nice article presenting his version of "the Star System". While our views on what standards should be used for deciding how many stars a problem warrants are pretty similar, I will go a little further and rank those standards as I see them, from most to least important:

1. THE LINE - The cardinal standard by which I judge a climb is the line itself. A pure, beautiful, and not contrived line immediately stands out amongst others. I truly believe that some peoples' brains are wired to appreciate aesthetic perfection; if climbing is our ART, than the rocks we climb on are the CANVAS. Ideally, there are just enough features for your hands and feet to get you to the top, nothing more, nothing less. This explains why there seem to be a lot more difficult 4/5 star problems than easy ones; it's much more common for hard problems to have just the right amount of features than for easy problems. The difference between a gem such as Speed of Life and a turd such as this, should be obvious to even the most casual climber.
   
2. ROCK QUALITY - This comes is a very close second and is measured on a lot of levels. What sort of rock is it? Sandstone and certain types of granite or gneiss are, arguably, more beautiful and lend themselves to having features that are more pleasant to climb on than, say, limestone. A great boulder problem needs to have bullet hard rock that doesn't flake or crumble; choss is UNACCEPTABLE. Sharpness of holds detracts from rock quality; the nicer the holds are, the more fun you have when you're climbing! Duh.
   
3. HEIGHT - It would be hard to argue that a proud pure line of 20 feet is not superior to a similar one of 12 feet. Height adds everything: grandiosity, an intimidation factor, consequences, and you get to climb for longer (sweet!).
4. AN OBVIOUS START - An obvious place for your hands to start, coupled with an obvious top out jug or mantle, can be compared to the dramatic action seen in a play: an obvious jug begins the exposition, a series of acts leads to the climax (the crux), and finally eases down to the dénouement (Jugs), or alternately, a dramatic finale (a spicy mantle!). This goes along with a good line; chances are a quality line has an obvious start.
5. SETTING - Though not as important as the other factors, the setting for a boulder can certainly add or detract greatly from the overall experience of the climb itself. Few would deny that Area D in Mt. Evans, CO, one of the most tranquil, sublime, and divine bouldering locales out there, is vastly superior to Lincoln Woods, RI, a polluted park full of discarded hypodermic needles, condoms, and the occasional pickler.
6. LANDING - Perhaps the least essential factor, though one that cannot be completely discounted, is the boulder problem's landing. More often than not, a few pads is sufficient enough to allow for a relatively safe experience. Occasionally though, things can get a little hairy.

What about MOVEMENT? Certainly, rad moves are a huge part of a problem's overall experience. But I agree with Jaime, adding movement into the mix introduces a subjective element. After all, the other 6 elements are undeniable and seldom change. On the other hand, there may be 15 different iterations of beta that get one to the top of a problem. In the end, whichever method is "most fun" cannot really be weighed when assigning stars to problem. Sure, some will say that judging a line as beautiful is also subjective; the difference is that we all see the same line, while movement can be interpreted and played out in thousands of different ways. For example, while a deep euro drop knee can be really fun for some, Adam Strong's MCL might disagree. Besides, there is a strong correlation between how good a problem looks and how well it climbs (of course there are exceptions to this).

Point/Counterpoint: Jeremy Walton on a beautiful project at LRC that unfortunately does not climb half as well as it looks...check out the weird bird like splotch that mimics the climber's body position! LARK.

These six criteria can be assigned between 0.0 and 1.0 points, and then added together to give a problem its star rating. For example, the aforementioned Speed of Life would have the following stats:

Line - 1.0; pretty much a perfect line of comfortable, positive edges five feet apart, up a 28 foot face.
Rock Quality - 0.9; close to perfect, one hold has broken and one is reinforced so not quite, but otherwise all the holds are positive and comfortable.
Height - 0.9; if not for the tiered boulder behind it, this would be perfectly terrifying at the top.
Obvious Start - 0.7; though the sit start on the arete is very obvious, some might argue that starting there is less natural than starting on the massive jug at head height.
Setting - 0.8; this is one of two boulder problems that I've ever walked up to and had my jaw drop. You literally cannot believe your eyes when you come over the hill and it's sitting in front of you. The Farley forest is a serene gneiss paradise.
Landing - 0.8; again, without the multi-tiered landing behind it, the problem would be unbelievably committing. As it sits now, your spotters can pluck you out of the air on the last move and you'd only fall about 6 feet.

This means that a 5 star problem can indeed exist (5.1 stars in Speed of Life's case) as long as it meets all 6 criteria sufficiently, but it does not necessarily have to be perfect in every sense. In my opinion there might be 6 or 7 of them in the US, and perhaps 25 worldwide (that we know of). I propose that the ambitious figure of 6 stars be assigned to the BEST PROBLEM IN THE WORLD, one that was perfect by these measures, if ever such an hypothetical consensus was to be reached.

So what's the point of all this conjecture? Just this. I'm going to create the LIST of America's best boulder problems at every grade and eventually at every area. But I need your help. Below I'm enumerating every 4 and 5 star problem that I can think of in each grade. Perhaps the list will be narrowed down to the 5 best in each grade, perhaps it will have to be expanded. You may vote for the climbs that I've listed or you can write in your own. ALL suggestions/critiques/corrections are welcome.

Why should this list exist? Simple. This will be the Holy Grail of bouldering.

Get out there, and SEND THEM ALL.
































That's it. I'm sure there's a few i forgot about, and certainly some that I'm not aware of; add them! Eventually I hope to consolidate the LIST and have stats and pictures for every problem. Thanks in advance for all the input!