Broken Flowers, Still “Broken” After All These Years

Broken Flowers was a line Jon Wright and I did back in 2009. There’s both a sit and a stand. The line is very cool, moves are committing and the gB still has the information on the stand start (thus the line itself) wrong. Not to beat a dead horse, but not only did I post accurately about it 2010 here, I even showed it to the gB author and explained the details of the climb.

The gB still shows the stand starting too high (the description is more accurate). The difference between the stand and sit is literally one move, and it’s a hard move. I detailed the unique nature of the sit and Robert does a good job explaining the need to start off the pad before going up (Jon and I both did this and yes it’s way easier to use your butt as a third “foot” hold). From standing, one reaches the high right pinch with the left hand on the lower sidepull arete as per the sit. Below is both the gB photo and photo of the actual start.

The correct stand start is shown with a red circle.

As you can see by the red circle, the stand starts lower then the topo drawing. I’d say maybe a grade difference if starting via the gB photo vs. the real stand start? Below is a photo I used with the original post.

Jon is sticking the high right pinch that can be reached from the ground for the stand. From where he’s at, he would be doing the stand.

That lower chalk hold is the right hand sit start hold with Jon sticking the pinch from which the stand begins.

It’s my opinion that every move counts in bouldering simply because there’s too few of them to ignore… unless, of course, the goal is the pendant you seek. Sits are really tricky because legacy “rules” don’t apply to every body type. What most shorter climbers attempt in order to keep the difficulty character the same is to pad up just until one can reach the holds and start, to the best of their knowledge, as per the original ascentionist. This is called respect for the first ascent. I disgress.

Here’s a parting shot of the amazement.

Geology, stone and weathering have a circular relationship… or do they. The mystery goes on.

~ by r. mulligan on 2020/08/17.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: