Were Climbers better 15 years ago?

[Taupotreeman]

Sorry to jump in half way through this thread and I'm afraid I haven't read it all but can some one tell me when it was first obligatory that you had to have qualifications before you were hired? I trained in forestry and conservation at an agricultural college in Lincoln before being hired on as a trainee climber back in loughborough. I never had any qualifications in arb until I came to NZ and needed them for residency. Everybody before that took me on with a probation period while I proved myself, no quals ever really asked for. As for who is better, old school or the new brigade; I've seen the bad and the good in both. The old school boys knew how to make the most of the lesser tools they had, bearing in mind the improvements in gear over the last few years, but some of the new boys seem to expect the gear to do half the job for them and if a piece of gear is left at home they're stumped as how to get up the tree without it. Mind you, a lot of this new stuff sure does make the job easier. Three strand rope with three strand prussicks that locked up in the wet? Not anymore.

[skyhuck]

There has always been those who talk the talk, but can't walk the walk.

 

I think that tickets make it harder for guys to know if they are good or not, they get the ticket and think that makes them good.

 

When I first started climbing I had no idea if I was good or not and tended to play down my ability when looking for work, I remember climbing for a timber merchant, who one of the climbers I grounded for normally climbed for, I was truly shocked when he said he thought I was a much better climber than the other guy. He got me in for all his climbing after that, he taught me so much about timber and felling, proper old skool hard wood faller. He wore jeans and a flat cap when I first worked with him.

 

I think back then lads came into the job because they needed a job and had worked on farms and the like so could graft, every one would climb up to knock off the odd lower limb or the like. Those that showed some ability would be pushed to do more climbing and good climbers were born.

 

Now many guys want to climb for the glory, and are maybe not real grafters.

 

One of the things that makes me think some only climb for the accolade, is those who quit at 35. If they really loved climbing they would carry on, its as if they only did it so they could say they had and then stop as soon as they think they can use their age as an excuse, they then spend the rest of their working lives telling every one how good they were. And telling the young guys that climb for them how rubbish they are.

Edited August 20, 2010 by skyhuck

[Lorry thompson]

I've met a few of them skyhuck they go on about how good they were back in the day and how they are old school but they're still in their early thirties. I was thinking that I used to be faster but thinking back I was probably wasting energy running around the tree like an idiot because of lack of experience. I worked with an old bloke in the woods who looked slow but turned out loads of work

[Sam Thompson]

You get this in every proffesion, sport, hobby etc!

 

 

I think you have to take the best from both ways of thinking

 

 

 

 

 

Sam

[bob]

There has always been those who talk the talk, but can't walk the walk.

 

I think that tickets make it harder for guys to know if they are good or not, they get the ticket and think that makes them good.

 

When I first started climbing I had no idea if I was good or not and tended to play down my ability when looking for work, I remember climbing for a timber merchant, who one of the climbers I grounded for normally climbed for, I was truly shocked when he said he thought I was a much better climber than the other guy. He got me in for all his climbing after that, he taught me so much about timber and felling, proper old skool hard wood faller. He wore jeans and a flat cap when I first worked with him.

 

I think back then lads came into the job because they needed a job and had worked on farms and the like so could graft, every one would climb up to knock off the odd lower limb or the like. Those that showed some ability would be pushed to do more climbing and good climbers were born.

 

Now many guys want to climb for the glory, and are maybe not real grafters.

 

One of the things that makes me think some only climb for the accolade, is those who quit at 35. If they really loved climbing they would carry on, its as if they only did it so they could say they had and then stop as soon as they think they can use their age as an excuse, they then spend the rest of their working lives telling every one how good they were. And telling the young guys that climb for them how rubbish they are.

 

so is 41 acceptable then:thumbup:

does it not also matter how young they were when they started

[Johny Walker]

i think skyhuck has sumed it up in a nut shell ,met loads of these on utility work ,look @ me iv got a fancy harness ,

[Frank]

What makes a good climber? Or what would make one climber better than another? Speed? Attitude? Safety?

[skyhuck]

Productivity.

[Frank]

Productivity.

 

So..... A climber who can see what needs to be done, gets his gear on, gets up the tree and does it as quickly and safely as possible would be a good climber?

A guy who sees the actual climbing as just something that needs to doing to access the wood and not something special that sets them apart from other cogs in the machine.

[Johny Walker]

& of coures safe work practices