poll: lines like nohows plink-0 more rope than ski, skiing or not

**smuggs** · 03-30-2010, 12:14 PM

"i thought i saw a skiable line"

-yea, we put our skis on and used all of our skills to ski down this mountain sucessfully

-no you rapelled down a mountain, and brought your skis to make down climbing over 40 foot patches of snow easier

and are those guys flying around with speed kites touching down on various glaciers in europe completing first descents of these faces?

part of me wants to compare this to a kid sliding a pvc rail in july on his front yard with astroturf rink snow and tide soap and calling it a first descent. the other part says bravo gentlemen.

how do you guys feel about it?

EDIT for photos

skiing

their line is on the side of this cliff to the top of the pyramid the wall is so steep you cant see the 60 degree snowfields, we hiked the apron under it and it was crazy from there to think someone skied down there.

**marshalolson** · 03-30-2010, 12:15 PM

i think that plinko line was sick as shit, and turns were put down where you could not otherwise ski...

so yeah, sliding on snow with skis is skiing... yes?

**BFD** · 03-30-2010, 12:26 PM

I think a great ski line is one people look at and say wow I'd like to hit that. Those guys probably had a good adventure but I don't think it will become a classic. Personaly I have done alot of rapelling and my share of sidestepping and it is not something I look for in a line. Props for those guys for getting after it and they can call it whatever they want it's their experience.

**buttahflake** · 03-30-2010, 12:26 PM

it's called SKI mountaineering. it's skiing for sure

**Powder Pussy** · 03-30-2010, 12:27 PM

Total Pussies.

Last time I took my skis off to walk down, I was ten.

**summit** · 03-30-2010, 12:31 PM

Speed flying first descents are speed flying first descents, not skiing first descents.

Ski mountaineering is not always skiing per se.

It's all good and for the love of it, right?

**smuggs** · 03-30-2010, 12:54 PM

i vote skiing, just trying to provoke semi intelligent conversation.

**Jack** · 03-30-2010, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Summit

It's all good and for the love of it, right?

Righteous indeedy.

**paj** · 03-30-2010, 03:43 PM

It's skiing. they hauled ski gear up it and wore the ski gear on the way down. they skied every possible section, they only rapelled the areas they had to, which turned out being most of the face, but still..

**montanaskier** · 03-30-2010, 03:45 PM

skiing....

**_Aaron_** · 03-30-2010, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by smuggs

just trying to provoke semi intelligent conversation.

Wrong place for that.

Yes skiing

**User Name** · 03-30-2010, 04:35 PM

skiing iff vertical feet skied above apron - 2 x (vertical rappelled) - 4 x (vertical sidestepped) > 0

rappel multiplier is 2 because you could always huck instead of rappel (hucking = skiing)

sidestepped multiplier is 4 because it has already been established on this forum that sidestepping does not count as skiing

**gpcharles** · 03-30-2010, 04:48 PM

Where's the option for "not for us to Internet quarterbacks to decide"?

gunit130 · 03-30-2010, 05:06 PM

I don't give a shit what they are doing.

If they have skis on, and there is snow, it is skiing.

**Dhelihiker** · 03-30-2010, 05:15 PM

That shit was sick, and yes it was skiing. Could a beginner skier do that? Or even better would they.

**userA** · 03-30-2010, 05:35 PM

mountaineers with steeze

**Trackhead** · 03-30-2010, 10:31 PM

They had fun, that's all that matters.

About five years ago Altapowderdaze and I went up to ski their line, looked at it with a beta photo, then backed off and "skied" the north ridge. APD mentioned he was nauseous looking down it. If you're looking for a tamer version to Plinko, and you've already skied everything else, the north ridge is exciting knife edge retardness with a 60m rap.

North Ridge.

**Corest to the Morest** · 03-31-2010, 07:48 AM

Totally skiing. I know its hard for some people to imagine that skis can be used for more than carving turns in cordouroy, but long before people trapsed out of the suburbs on saturdays to practice their pizza and frenchfries, skis were tools for traveling in snow covered mountain terrain. Not only is this 'skiing', it's fucking incredible skiing in that it required expert skiing knowledge and a creative and courageous approach to applying that knowledge.

**gpcharles** · 03-31-2010, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Corest to the Morest

Totally skiing. I know its hard for some people to imagine that skis can be used for more than carving turns in cordouroy, but long before people trapsed out of the suburbs on saturdays to practice their pizza and frenchfries, skis were tools for traveling in snow covered mountain terrain. Not only is this 'skiing', it's fucking incredible skiing in that it required expert skiing knowledge and a creative and courageous approach to applying that knowledge.

while i agree with what you've said, I do think there is still some reasons why it still might not be considered skiing even in light of that. can you really call it "travelling" (and thereby "skiing") when they skin around the plinko line, and then carefully rig up a way to get through it alive with skis? I honestly don't know the answer to this question. That's why I stick by my original post and say this discussion really isn't for us to come to a conclusion on... it's for Noah, and his buddy to decide. I'd really love to get their honest opinion because in my mind that's the only one that matters.

**Corest to the Morest** · 03-31-2010, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by gpetrics

while i agree with what you've said, I do think there is still some reasons why it still might not be considered skiing even in light of that. can you really call it "travelling" (and thereby "skiing") when they skin around the plinko line, and then carefully rig up a way to get through it alive with skis? I honestly don't know the answer to this question. That's why I stick by my original post and say this discussion really isn't for us to come to a conclusion on... it's for Noah, and his buddy to decide. I'd really love to get their honest opinion because in my mind that's the only one that matters.

While I agree that 'motion' is inherently relative, and to some degree theoretical, this would qualify as motion in about 99.9999% of all discussions where motion is more or less defined as the travel between two relative points over time.

If not 'travel', what would you call it when you move from one place to another?

**gpcharles** · 03-31-2010, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Corest to the Morest

While I agree that 'motion' is inherently relative, and to some degree theoretical, this would qualify as motion in about 99.9999% of all discussions where motion is more or less defined as the travel between two relative points over time.

If not 'travel', what would you call it when you move from one place to another?

Fair enough... you're right about that stream of thought getting way too theoretical/philosophical. That wasn't what i was getting at, so let's just take a step back from my previous comment. I wasn't forming my thoughts well enough apparently.

So, in the interest of clarifying my position as to why I think this needs the opinion of the original descenders, let me try to better articulate what it is with your line of thinking that I don't like.

I think what i disagree with most is the equation of "travel on snow on skis" as skiing. I think there is more to it than that. Indeed, I think the spirit of "travelling on snow with skis" and calling it "skiing" is really a matter of convenience. I think there is more to it than just skis on your feet and moving = skiing. If that were the case I could put skis on my feet to cross an ice skating rink and call it skiing. But ice skates make more sense! I could put skis on my feet and try drive my car, and I'd be moving, but it wouldn't be skiing.

In the interest of formulating a definition of skiing in the vein I think you're getting at, I would suggest the following: skiing is travel on snow/ice/frozen stuff on skis that "makes sense" or is "most convenient." Obviously with part of the definition in quotes we're already setting ourselves up for interpretation here, but this is sport not science. As an example, going from one town to another with skis when the roads between them are covered in snowis the easiest way, so that is skiing. Another example would be going down any variety of mountainside with skis on, but which is usually a horrible butt-glisse controlled by a mtn axe. Skis are the easiest way down--they make sense--so that is skiing.

Is toting along skis on your feet during a descent of a mountainside that demands a several pitch rappel (like plinko) the easiest way? Does it make sense? Sure you're technically moving (and hence travelling) with skis onyour feet, but might it not be better to just simply rap the whole thing? I really don't know. Does the quality of the snow patches justify having skis, or was it really just a desperation turn? I don't know, and that is precisely why I want to leave it to the creator to decide. I will respect their opinion more than anyone else's on the matter.

**Corest to the Morest** · 03-31-2010, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by gpetrics

Fair enough... you're right about that stream of thought getting way too theoretical/philosophical. That wasn't what i was getting at, so let's just take a step back from my previous comment. I wasn't forming my thoughts well enough apparently.

So, in the interest of clarifying my position as to why I think this needs the opinion of the original descenders, let me try to better articulate what it is with your line of thinking that I don't like.

I think what i disagree with most is the equation of "travel on snow on skis" as skiing. I think there is more to it than that. Indeed, I think the spirit of "travelling on snow with skis" and calling it "skiing" is really a matter of convenience. I think there is more to it than just skis on your feet and moving = skiing. If that were the case I could put skis on my feet to cross an ice skating rink and call it skiing. But ice skates make more sense! I could put skis on my feet and try drive my car, and I'd be moving, but it wouldn't be skiing.

In the interest of formulating a definition of skiing in the vein I think you're getting at, I would suggest the following: skiing is travel on snow/ice/frozen stuff on skis that "makes sense" or is "most convenient." Obviously with part of the definition in quotes we're already setting ourselves up for interpretation here, but this is sport not science. As an example, going from one town to another with skis when the roads between them are covered in snowis the easiest way, so that is skiing. Another example would be going down any variety of mountainside with skis on, but which is usually a horrible butt-glisse controlled by a mtn axe. Skis are the easiest way down--they make sense--so that is skiing.

Is toting along skis on your feet during a descent of a mountainside that demands a several pitch rappel (like plinko) the easiest way? Does it make sense? Sure you're technically moving (and hence travelling) with skis onyour feet, but might it not be better to just simply rap the whole thing? I really don't know. Does the quality of the snow patches justify having skis, or was it really just a desperation turn? I don't know, and that is precisely why I want to leave it to the creator to decide. I will respect their opinion more than anyone else's on the matter.

You've left out the concept of recreational skiing in your post. Does skiing for fun not count as skiing?

Are resort skiing, and inefficient ski mountaineering not both essentially recreational activities?

What name do you use to refer to travelling on skis in instances when you're travelling on skis, but not for efficiency or recreation?

As the plinko poster posited in his thread:

Is this skiing? Yes, we have skis on our feet.

**gpcharles** · 03-31-2010, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Corest to the Morest

You've left out the concept of recreational skiing in your post. Does skiing for fun not count as skiing?

Are resort skiing, and inefficient ski mountaineering not both essentially recreational activities?

Apparently you've never seen anyone walk down the hill with skis under their arms at the resort. Skis are the most convenient way down resort slopes regardless of whether it's for recreation or gainful employment (e.g. a ski patroller). Likewise in many ski mountaineering objectives skis are the best tool for the descent. Furthermore even park skiers are included: to complete the maneuvers they do require the skis. I suggest you think for a moment before criticizing.

Originally Posted by Corest to the Morest

What name do you use to refer to travelling on skis in instances when you're travelling on skis, but not for efficiency or recreation?

As the plinko poster posited in his thread:

Is this skiing? Yes, we have skis on our feet.

I'd call driving in a car with skis on your feet by one simple word: stupid. And I'm convinced Noah would have more to say on why he considers his descent of Plinko skiing if you presented him this counterexample. I'd like to hear a bit more of his reasoning a lot more than someone with 53 posts taking potshots at a real discussion rather than contributing specific thoughts.

**StraightChuter** · 03-31-2010, 10:19 AM

I think lines like these are valid in the same way that Aid Climbing is a valid aspect of rock climbing. When Warren Harding first climbed The Nose on El Cap, it took something like 30 days and he pulled on pitons and bolts most of the way up. Twenty years later, Lynn Hill climbed the same route in a day using only her hands and feet with a rope as a backup. Eventually somebody will do it without the backup rope. All of these ascents are totally valid and equally impressive (at least to me), yet they also build on each other.

In terms of ski mountaineering, lines like the Grand Teton or the Great White Icicle were first "skied" with some sort of rappeling or downclimbing, but part of the allure of those lines is that given the right person and conditions, they may eventually be "freed" one day and done top to bottom with skis/board on. When this happens, it won't take anything away from the likes of Bill Briggs, but be more of a legitimate progression of the sport.

But beyond that, it is up to personal interpretation. I suppose you could "ski" the North Face of the Grand Teton by making three turns off the top, doing 600' of rappeling, downclimb a snowfield, rappel for another 500', sideslip for 100', rappel for another 400', ski the apron and call it a descent. Or, for that matter, fix a 3,000' line off of El Cap and rap the whole thing with your skis on just to say you skied it. At some point it becomes ridiculous and only time will tell whether it was a goofy stunt or a worthy line.

Another consideration is the idea of making turns in a wild location just for the hell of it or to explore. If the Cable Route on Half Dome was down on the valley floor, it would be an insignificant lump, but when you add a 2,000' vertical drop under it, it suddenly takes on a whole new meaning.

**Corest to the Morest** · 03-31-2010, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by gpetrics

Apparently you've never seen anyone walk down the hill with skis under their arms at the resort. Skis are the most convenient way down resort slopes regardless of whether it's for recreation or gainful employment (e.g. a ski patroller). Likewise in many ski mountaineering objectives skis are the best tool for the descent. Furthermore even park skiers are included: to complete the maneuvers they do require the skis. I suggest you think for a moment before criticizing.

Park skiing is skiing.

If you ride your skis down the hill at the resort, strictly because you'd rather not walk, I have to wonder what you're doing at the top of a ski lift to begin with.

Originally Posted by gpetrics

I'd call driving in a car with skis on your feet by one simple word: stupid. And I'm convinced Noah would have more to say on why he considers his descent of Plinko skiing if you presented him this counterexample. I'd like to hear a bit more of his reasoning a lot more than someone with 53 posts taking potshots at a real discussion rather than contributing specific thoughts.

Stupid, as you used it there, is an adjective, not a noun. And since you've resorted to pointing out my low post count (and referring to the post you spent 6 paragraphs replying to as a 'potshot') I can only assume you're out of ideas for continuing this conversation.

Nice talking to you. Idiot.