Weekday RQ climbing partner(s) needed

Post by **captain static** » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:45 pm

Apparently office (gym) politics. I had just talked to Matt & was approved to set. He said it was allright to my name up on the list. I had set a few few routes, then apparently there was a decision that there were too many people's names on the list, setting was out of control, and a new list and rules were posted. I have since talked to Matt & he has confirmed that I can set anytime he is there. Problem is I work full time, run a part-time business, and have to schedule setting at the spur of the moment which might be a time when Matt is not there. I would like to see my name on the list but just haven't had the energy to push the point.

Post by **jefflehmkuhl** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:20 pm

what's the point, it has been obvious to all that if you want to boulder, you go to CT, and if you want to do endurance, you go to RQ. Seems pretty simple, but that's just me.

Post by **captain static** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 3:29 pm

The difference for me is the rope & the partner. True RQ is a great place to work endurance/power endurance & you certainly can't work on your lead head @CT. Howver, to work endurance @ RQ you either have to downclimb or do laps back to back. Then you have to accomodate your partner doing the same, if you can find a partner willing to share such drudgery and who's schedule can mesh yours. Working endurance is all about logging mileage. Traverses and circuit problems are great for that. Circuit problems are especially good for working power/endurance, since the goal is climbing to failure within a specified number of moves. Jeff, I know you think traverses are worthless & don't want to argue on that. The bottom line for me is that @ CT I can log more mileage in a specified period of time without having to worry about scheduling things with a partner.