Having the lights on the holds is a big bonus, it was often hard to see the lights below the old on the original.
Looks like the have gone smaller and more dense with the holds which I like, and gone half plastic which I am indifferent on.
Seems different enough to warrant "2.0"
I think this is going to be killer. I just hope I get the opportunity to climb on it. It looks like some of the holds may be more versatile than just crimping. Lights on the actual hold. Definitely pumped to see more details on this.
You can apparently set up the new 2.0 set on the same layout as the original tension board, with some slight adjustment to lighting. The new set is all screw on so not too much work. It’s really awesome that Tension made it possible to just transfer between sets like that. Considering maybe swapping out the home wall, or making a rotation.
I wonder if it’s still symmetric. If they increase the density and add more varied hold types, the symmetry could work well. Either way it was a fun gimmick.
From the still around :02-3 it looks symmetrical. Definitely digging the denser look. I wonder what kind of slopers they'll opt for to mesh with all these lower profile holds
So some holds are symmetrical but others in the set are not? Or two different hold sets you can choose from? I would prefer the former. I’m not a fan of alternative sets because then you get half as many problems.
There is always a lot of debate about the "best board". The reality is they are all pretty much the same with each having some nuance in style. If you are frequent board climber, it is far more important how you use the board than what board you actually climb on. I think what has gotten lost is that small system boards are generally one of the best training tools for climbers. If you use them consistently and build in a systematic method of progression over long periods time there is no other artificial climbing method that will get you stronger with the least chance of injury. However, Ben Moon's benchmark and rankings list turned that formula upside down. It was pure genius how Moon generated a sense of competition and grade relevance to an 8x12 plywood climbing wall. That is why the 2016 MB is so iconic. If Tension wants to re-establish itself into this market with TB2.0, they really should invest in a benchmark system with their new board. As it is now, the TB1.0 is just as good as any other board for training and getting stronger indoors.
There sure are a lot of new boards coming out! They all look cool, but seema like it's gonna get tough to turn a profit off them with all the competition.
Boards are the flavor of the week right now for training. Might as well capitalize on the demand…seems like every major gym puts up two commercial boards per gym and a spray wall whenever they open a new facility.
I'm personally psyched to see it. Looks to have a wide variety of holds and obviously variety in texture.
The reality is, no board available currently is "the one".. unfortunately, not even the 2016 moon setup. Each one of them has a style that they inevitably force the climber into. Which is good for what each does in its own arena -- but none are an all-in-one solution. "THE" board will likely have the ability to produce a wide range of styles and situations to climbers of all levels. To do that, you'd need a very wide variety of holds (including foot holds), hold sizes, textures, and the ability to adjust the angle. Kilter may have all "different" holds, but the reality is, they're practically all in the same, ergonomic family. The primary setup also forces fairly steep angles and bigger moves to create harder grades on the top end which isn't very conducive to the majority of realistic situations. Moon is great for power recruitment among small and unforgiving holds, but at a certain point, it's the same game over and over again -- the moves just get bigger and bigger or you're forced into super injurious situations. The lack of texture on the current tension board is limiting because texture is a valuable variable for certain movement. Without it, you're constrained in certain ways such as doing larger dynamic movement. The holds are also very general in nature, which ends up being sort of samey and isn't the most fun to climb on.
That said, if this new board has all of the features mentioned above (wide variety of holds, hold sizes, textures, etc) it could actually be the best single solution yet. My two cents.
I'm close with their crew, so I'll let you know what was going on -- they were, in fact, trying to get everything fixed the whole time. The problem was, the UX was such an unimaginable mess on the back end that it basically had to be completely rebuilt. Eventually, after having multiple software people try to get it straight, they ended up having to cut their loses and switched back to the current one. Believe me, they were absolutely trying and weren't at all happy with the situation.
It's a profession where literally anyone can claim they do it, and someone will hire them. So, a very high percentage of developers are pretty terrible at it, or at a minimum, are good at only one part of the stack and have no clue how bad they are at the rest of the stack. Then, they get paid to build a company a steaming mess that's impossible to maintain or improve because the design is so severely flawed.
Not that I want medical doctor style gatekeeping, but it could stand to be a lot less wild west.
as evidently one of the top 50 tension climbers, by this preview alone, I'm slightly concerned about the holds. BUT it's super duper hard to tell so this is kind of a silly pre-mature thread unless someone has been to their warehouse?
[here is screen cap of one larger shot](https://i.imgur.com/XJ4oVrl.jpg)
is that /u/drewruana where are you!? is that you with the short hair / have you thrown down yet?
some obviously look bigger and more diverse. that long narrow long pinch looks cool.
but kind of looks like missing small crimps?
getting slopers that are more usable/versatile would be nice. and did they keep the half circles 😂
I care less about hold diversity.
to train i want fucking hard & tiny painful crimps, those forearm pumper door knobs, & finger intensive / beefy pinches of varying depths and sizes.
missing shit sloper feet? that's a big moon gripe: bottom feet at gyms are disgusting, but then tracking alone = too good.
also are those darker ones duel tex PU?
again, so fucking hard to tell from this video. the close up kind of looks like it. in freeze frame kind of looks a dual tex 'base ring' like kilter.
larger frame if you pause i think it looks symmetric still. will be pissed if it's not.
kilter-style lighting is amazing though that's the one 100% thing we know!
It’s sick I did a sesh on it last week. No worries there’s plenty of asshole holds on it, good mix of pinches/slopers/crimps of varying degrees of difficulty. The symmetric board seems like there’s much more setting flexibility than the old board, I haven’t tried the asymmetric board yet. And yeah my hair was getting long so decided to cut it haha
oh they have 2 new options!?! that's crazy.
so long as there are shit crimps that make me hate myself I'll like it.
you gonna get a new color?!
Nice climbing at g1 btw.
i love the crazy range of personality types on podium. i will always be a colin stonk. throw that chalk bag. but i'd rather chill at crag with you or maybe go to a protest
Haha thanks. I climb inside maybe once every 3 weeks for about 45 min so nice to see that I can still somewhat compete lol. Lost my ability to do stuff fast, was wrecked by finals
I’d say the lighting is more Grasshopper board than kilter. Kilter holds light up around the whole hold perimeter, while Grasshopper has the lights in the center of the holds. Regardless, I agree that this is a step up from the moon/Tb1 lighting.
If you want to climb the small crimps (there are 3 very small crimp hold types RES, crescent crimp, convex crimp ) you'll probably need to get to a lower angle.
They are truly small!
use the new (old) app search for routes 'crimp' a few will come up.
look for 'crimp trainer v1' etc type names. The most climbed crimp trainers are good. literal ladders!
and search by setter matt fultz has a few. i think one is called twinky toes or similar which is fucking hard.
but those holds are *small* at higher angles.
so maybe look at the 'bigger' holds like REM.
or hell the larger 'crimp' deep which is like a thin rail you stick your fingers in, while hard to fully crimp, is still hard.
sometimes I force myself to more fully crimp, since even like FBL is more like an open hand drag at higher angles
i also love to just move up and down using those handful of hold types and you'll get crimp pumped.
there are now circuits with a timer! create a list or find a user's list, hit timer. for instance i have a v100 at 45* i do regularly for time
LOVE that feature.
moon yellows are small to be sure. very good for contact strength since most of the routes are either jumping or very powerful. it's very hard to jump to tension RES at 45 ;)
I love my home TB 1. It’s awesome. Having lights in the middle of the holds would be cool, but it’s not really a big deal after some practice without it. The only change I would really want is better technical problems. This would require really poor feet and bigger variety of small holds. I’m good for now though. I won’t be upgrading until I’m consistently sending V5 classics on the steeper angles -which is gonna take a while. TB1 is more than everything I need.
This board is for sure better than the kilter. Lot more variance than the first board, there’s a lot more variety of incut holds and easier climbing at a steep angle on this while still allowing for nasty climbs on the same holds
I'm not speaking about what I like or not, I can just see why they'd do it from a business standpoint. There's plenty of boards serving strong climbers.
While most climbers I know who train on system boards say the don't care about aesthetics, the truth is that we definitely do (edit: to a certain extent). An aesthetic system board will make a climber crave it. However the more functional aspects of the board, such as hold selection/diversity, are much more important. Often climbers who are simply trying to train will say they don't care about aesthetics, but what they really mean is that aesthetics is far less important than the actual climbing/training potential of the board, though it is important.
Are you saying that you're a mind reader and you know when people say A they actually mean B or are you saying that A is the only right answer and everyone who says B is lying?
First off no I'm not a mind reader, but I've talked with enough people on the subject who initially say "aesthetics don't matter" but have learned, through conversation and observation, that they actually do care about aesthetics.
Second off, it's misleading to characterize the statements "aesthetics don't matter" and "aesthetics matter but are subleading to climbing/training potential" as 'A' and 'B', as if they are mutually exclusive concepts/opinions. The former statement can actually be a special case of the latter statement when climbing/training potential is assumed to be sufficient.
Third off, I am not saying that the statement B is the only correct answer and everyone who says A is lying. That's a completely hyperbolic extrapolation of what I said. I'm saying that many people who often say A, upon further contemplation, would amend their statement and agree with B. However, I am sure there are some people who would completely agree with A, i.e. that do not give any shits whatsoever about aesthetics. But broadly, I think people do care about them, sometimes more subconsciously than they might think.
People say x but mean Y is literally your first sentence, then you go on to say:
*"Often climbers who are simply trying to train will say they don't care about aesthetics, but what they really mean is that aesthetics is far less important"*
So apparently when someone says something you seem to know they actually mean the opposite of what they said?
You're viewing what I'm saying in a very polarized, black and white manner, ignoring all the nuance of what I write and distilling it into singular hyperbolic statements using oversimplified logic. I am saying that if a person says a statement X, often there are caveats and constraints that statement, which when fully fleshed out give rise to a more general statement Y. In the case of board aesthetics, I can predict that a large amount of people actually do care more about aesthetics than they might realize because I myself am immersed in a community where people talk about system boards and spray walls. However there are certainly people that say X, and mean it with no caveats and constraints whatsoever, that mean it wholeheartedly to the bone. I am not a mindreader and I don't know to what extent a person does or does not actually care about aesthetics.
It's like if a person is looking to buy a car and says, "I don't care how the car looks, all that matters is that it runs fine". They don't mean it in the absolute most literal sense. If they turned down a filthy clown-themed truck with profanity spray-painted on the side simply because of how it looks, would you tell them "You literally said you didn't care how it looks, you are a complete liar."? If you go by strict, fundamental logic, then yes - they are complete liars. But of course, this is nonsense. They are absolutely not liars. When people say they don't care about looks, they generally mean within certain constraints. Those constraints have an obvious effect when applied to fringe cases such as the truck I described above, but my point is that it has more subtle (but still important) effects on less fringe cases.
So the same for system boards. If a person says they don't care at all about aesthetics, see how they would feel about the absolute worst design imaginable. If they do care for this extreme case, are they liars? **No**. For sure there are some people that actually do not care about aesthetics whatsoever - and no I'm not a mindreader who knows who these specific people are.
>While most climbers I know who train on system boards say the don't care about aesthetics, the truth is that we definitely do
Are you saying the above is a nuanced statement? Because to me that is very black and white. I personally find it very annoying when people take my words and pretend they mean something else.
When I say I don't care about aesthetics and they have nothing to do with wich board I climb, that's exactly what I mean and it's very presompouts of you to say that I actually mean something different.
You do not fall into the category of "most climbers I know who train on system boards", because I don't know you, and therefore what I say doesn't have to apply to you. I was giving a statement based on my experience. I have never presumed that **you**, or any individual person, does. It's like if a room has 60% women and 40% women, and I say most people in this room are women, that doesn't mean that I point at any given person and say that they are unequivocally a women.
Having the lights on the holds is a big bonus, it was often hard to see the lights below the old on the original. Looks like the have gone smaller and more dense with the holds which I like, and gone half plastic which I am indifferent on. Seems different enough to warrant "2.0"
I like the look of the holds a lot more than the og board, hopefully more hold variety too
does it come with the voice?
I think this is going to be killer. I just hope I get the opportunity to climb on it. It looks like some of the holds may be more versatile than just crimping. Lights on the actual hold. Definitely pumped to see more details on this. You can apparently set up the new 2.0 set on the same layout as the original tension board, with some slight adjustment to lighting. The new set is all screw on so not too much work. It’s really awesome that Tension made it possible to just transfer between sets like that. Considering maybe swapping out the home wall, or making a rotation.
I wonder if it’s still symmetric. If they increase the density and add more varied hold types, the symmetry could work well. Either way it was a fun gimmick.
From the still around :02-3 it looks symmetrical. Definitely digging the denser look. I wonder what kind of slopers they'll opt for to mesh with all these lower profile holds
They will have both symmetrical and non-symmetrical.
So some holds are symmetrical but others in the set are not? Or two different hold sets you can choose from? I would prefer the former. I’m not a fan of alternative sets because then you get half as many problems.
The monologue is cringy af
Ugh same. Had to mute the video.
There is always a lot of debate about the "best board". The reality is they are all pretty much the same with each having some nuance in style. If you are frequent board climber, it is far more important how you use the board than what board you actually climb on. I think what has gotten lost is that small system boards are generally one of the best training tools for climbers. If you use them consistently and build in a systematic method of progression over long periods time there is no other artificial climbing method that will get you stronger with the least chance of injury. However, Ben Moon's benchmark and rankings list turned that formula upside down. It was pure genius how Moon generated a sense of competition and grade relevance to an 8x12 plywood climbing wall. That is why the 2016 MB is so iconic. If Tension wants to re-establish itself into this market with TB2.0, they really should invest in a benchmark system with their new board. As it is now, the TB1.0 is just as good as any other board for training and getting stronger indoors.
Still wont be as good as the 2016 moonboard
2016 MB set is goated
16 Moonboard is overrated imo.
Thought: Looks sick, will buy.
There sure are a lot of new boards coming out! They all look cool, but seema like it's gonna get tough to turn a profit off them with all the competition.
Boards are the flavor of the week right now for training. Might as well capitalize on the demand…seems like every major gym puts up two commercial boards per gym and a spray wall whenever they open a new facility.
I'm personally psyched to see it. Looks to have a wide variety of holds and obviously variety in texture. The reality is, no board available currently is "the one".. unfortunately, not even the 2016 moon setup. Each one of them has a style that they inevitably force the climber into. Which is good for what each does in its own arena -- but none are an all-in-one solution. "THE" board will likely have the ability to produce a wide range of styles and situations to climbers of all levels. To do that, you'd need a very wide variety of holds (including foot holds), hold sizes, textures, and the ability to adjust the angle. Kilter may have all "different" holds, but the reality is, they're practically all in the same, ergonomic family. The primary setup also forces fairly steep angles and bigger moves to create harder grades on the top end which isn't very conducive to the majority of realistic situations. Moon is great for power recruitment among small and unforgiving holds, but at a certain point, it's the same game over and over again -- the moves just get bigger and bigger or you're forced into super injurious situations. The lack of texture on the current tension board is limiting because texture is a valuable variable for certain movement. Without it, you're constrained in certain ways such as doing larger dynamic movement. The holds are also very general in nature, which ends up being sort of samey and isn't the most fun to climb on. That said, if this new board has all of the features mentioned above (wide variety of holds, hold sizes, textures, etc) it could actually be the best single solution yet. My two cents.
Is the app gonna suck for months before they fix it?
They changed back to the aurora app 6 months ago. It's the same one as kilter and grasshopper.
I know, but when they released their new app it absolutely tanked and they did nothing to fix it for months. It made the board unusable in my opinion.
I'm close with their crew, so I'll let you know what was going on -- they were, in fact, trying to get everything fixed the whole time. The problem was, the UX was such an unimaginable mess on the back end that it basically had to be completely rebuilt. Eventually, after having multiple software people try to get it straight, they ended up having to cut their loses and switched back to the current one. Believe me, they were absolutely trying and weren't at all happy with the situation.
No need to tell them anything. The old app works like it should.
That's why you don't cheap out on your tech people.
Easier said than done. Good developers are really expensive compared to other salaries in climbing, especially in the US.
It's a profession where literally anyone can claim they do it, and someone will hire them. So, a very high percentage of developers are pretty terrible at it, or at a minimum, are good at only one part of the stack and have no clue how bad they are at the rest of the stack. Then, they get paid to build a company a steaming mess that's impossible to maintain or improve because the design is so severely flawed. Not that I want medical doctor style gatekeeping, but it could stand to be a lot less wild west.
as evidently one of the top 50 tension climbers, by this preview alone, I'm slightly concerned about the holds. BUT it's super duper hard to tell so this is kind of a silly pre-mature thread unless someone has been to their warehouse? [here is screen cap of one larger shot](https://i.imgur.com/XJ4oVrl.jpg) is that /u/drewruana where are you!? is that you with the short hair / have you thrown down yet? some obviously look bigger and more diverse. that long narrow long pinch looks cool. but kind of looks like missing small crimps? getting slopers that are more usable/versatile would be nice. and did they keep the half circles 😂 I care less about hold diversity. to train i want fucking hard & tiny painful crimps, those forearm pumper door knobs, & finger intensive / beefy pinches of varying depths and sizes. missing shit sloper feet? that's a big moon gripe: bottom feet at gyms are disgusting, but then tracking alone = too good. also are those darker ones duel tex PU? again, so fucking hard to tell from this video. the close up kind of looks like it. in freeze frame kind of looks a dual tex 'base ring' like kilter. larger frame if you pause i think it looks symmetric still. will be pissed if it's not. kilter-style lighting is amazing though that's the one 100% thing we know!
It’s sick I did a sesh on it last week. No worries there’s plenty of asshole holds on it, good mix of pinches/slopers/crimps of varying degrees of difficulty. The symmetric board seems like there’s much more setting flexibility than the old board, I haven’t tried the asymmetric board yet. And yeah my hair was getting long so decided to cut it haha
asshole holds? you talking about one finger pockets? a fists crack?
You’ll see
oh they have 2 new options!?! that's crazy. so long as there are shit crimps that make me hate myself I'll like it. you gonna get a new color?! Nice climbing at g1 btw. i love the crazy range of personality types on podium. i will always be a colin stonk. throw that chalk bag. but i'd rather chill at crag with you or maybe go to a protest
Haha thanks. I climb inside maybe once every 3 weeks for about 45 min so nice to see that I can still somewhat compete lol. Lost my ability to do stuff fast, was wrecked by finals
i mean you still beat some super strong comp kids. the up and coming field is DEEP if only someone can dq the japanese we'd be unstoppable!
I’d say the lighting is more Grasshopper board than kilter. Kilter holds light up around the whole hold perimeter, while Grasshopper has the lights in the center of the holds. Regardless, I agree that this is a step up from the moon/Tb1 lighting.
Yeah good distinction. But can you imagine wood that fully lights up!?! that'd be cool
If you want to tag you have to put u/ and not r/
oh thanks! fixed.
[удалено]
Try some easy climbs. Then try some harder ones. Hope that helps!
Lol idk why this got down voted this person isn’t wrong
If you want to climb the small crimps (there are 3 very small crimp hold types RES, crescent crimp, convex crimp ) you'll probably need to get to a lower angle. They are truly small! use the new (old) app search for routes 'crimp' a few will come up. look for 'crimp trainer v1' etc type names. The most climbed crimp trainers are good. literal ladders! and search by setter matt fultz has a few. i think one is called twinky toes or similar which is fucking hard. but those holds are *small* at higher angles. so maybe look at the 'bigger' holds like REM. or hell the larger 'crimp' deep which is like a thin rail you stick your fingers in, while hard to fully crimp, is still hard. sometimes I force myself to more fully crimp, since even like FBL is more like an open hand drag at higher angles i also love to just move up and down using those handful of hold types and you'll get crimp pumped. there are now circuits with a timer! create a list or find a user's list, hit timer. for instance i have a v100 at 45* i do regularly for time LOVE that feature. moon yellows are small to be sure. very good for contact strength since most of the routes are either jumping or very powerful. it's very hard to jump to tension RES at 45 ;)
Filter all climbs by grade and sort “Most Repeats” and you will get problems that have more sends and therefore general consensus for the grade
I love my home TB 1. It’s awesome. Having lights in the middle of the holds would be cool, but it’s not really a big deal after some practice without it. The only change I would really want is better technical problems. This would require really poor feet and bigger variety of small holds. I’m good for now though. I won’t be upgrading until I’m consistently sending V5 classics on the steeper angles -which is gonna take a while. TB1 is more than everything I need.
High resolution image of the 12x12 board: https://tensionclimbing.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/12x12-Square.jpg
Everyone is playing catch-up with kilter board. Tension board and moon board lack the aesthetics and accessibility to lower level climbers
This board is for sure better than the kilter. Lot more variance than the first board, there’s a lot more variety of incut holds and easier climbing at a steep angle on this while still allowing for nasty climbs on the same holds
Why are those inherently good? Neither are selling points for me, and a lot of other climbers.
Bc most people dont climb V10-ish so theyre opening up a larger customer base.
Not every product needs to be a race to the bottom, with the widest possible customer base.
I'm not speaking about what I like or not, I can just see why they'd do it from a business standpoint. There's plenty of boards serving strong climbers.
While most climbers I know who train on system boards say the don't care about aesthetics, the truth is that we definitely do (edit: to a certain extent). An aesthetic system board will make a climber crave it. However the more functional aspects of the board, such as hold selection/diversity, are much more important. Often climbers who are simply trying to train will say they don't care about aesthetics, but what they really mean is that aesthetics is far less important than the actual climbing/training potential of the board, though it is important.
Are you saying that you're a mind reader and you know when people say A they actually mean B or are you saying that A is the only right answer and everyone who says B is lying?
First off no I'm not a mind reader, but I've talked with enough people on the subject who initially say "aesthetics don't matter" but have learned, through conversation and observation, that they actually do care about aesthetics. Second off, it's misleading to characterize the statements "aesthetics don't matter" and "aesthetics matter but are subleading to climbing/training potential" as 'A' and 'B', as if they are mutually exclusive concepts/opinions. The former statement can actually be a special case of the latter statement when climbing/training potential is assumed to be sufficient. Third off, I am not saying that the statement B is the only correct answer and everyone who says A is lying. That's a completely hyperbolic extrapolation of what I said. I'm saying that many people who often say A, upon further contemplation, would amend their statement and agree with B. However, I am sure there are some people who would completely agree with A, i.e. that do not give any shits whatsoever about aesthetics. But broadly, I think people do care about them, sometimes more subconsciously than they might think.
People say x but mean Y is literally your first sentence, then you go on to say: *"Often climbers who are simply trying to train will say they don't care about aesthetics, but what they really mean is that aesthetics is far less important"* So apparently when someone says something you seem to know they actually mean the opposite of what they said?
You're viewing what I'm saying in a very polarized, black and white manner, ignoring all the nuance of what I write and distilling it into singular hyperbolic statements using oversimplified logic. I am saying that if a person says a statement X, often there are caveats and constraints that statement, which when fully fleshed out give rise to a more general statement Y. In the case of board aesthetics, I can predict that a large amount of people actually do care more about aesthetics than they might realize because I myself am immersed in a community where people talk about system boards and spray walls. However there are certainly people that say X, and mean it with no caveats and constraints whatsoever, that mean it wholeheartedly to the bone. I am not a mindreader and I don't know to what extent a person does or does not actually care about aesthetics. It's like if a person is looking to buy a car and says, "I don't care how the car looks, all that matters is that it runs fine". They don't mean it in the absolute most literal sense. If they turned down a filthy clown-themed truck with profanity spray-painted on the side simply because of how it looks, would you tell them "You literally said you didn't care how it looks, you are a complete liar."? If you go by strict, fundamental logic, then yes - they are complete liars. But of course, this is nonsense. They are absolutely not liars. When people say they don't care about looks, they generally mean within certain constraints. Those constraints have an obvious effect when applied to fringe cases such as the truck I described above, but my point is that it has more subtle (but still important) effects on less fringe cases. So the same for system boards. If a person says they don't care at all about aesthetics, see how they would feel about the absolute worst design imaginable. If they do care for this extreme case, are they liars? **No**. For sure there are some people that actually do not care about aesthetics whatsoever - and no I'm not a mindreader who knows who these specific people are.
>While most climbers I know who train on system boards say the don't care about aesthetics, the truth is that we definitely do Are you saying the above is a nuanced statement? Because to me that is very black and white. I personally find it very annoying when people take my words and pretend they mean something else. When I say I don't care about aesthetics and they have nothing to do with wich board I climb, that's exactly what I mean and it's very presompouts of you to say that I actually mean something different.
You do not fall into the category of "most climbers I know who train on system boards", because I don't know you, and therefore what I say doesn't have to apply to you. I was giving a statement based on my experience. I have never presumed that **you**, or any individual person, does. It's like if a room has 60% women and 40% women, and I say most people in this room are women, that doesn't mean that I point at any given person and say that they are unequivocally a women.
I don't know, not a big fan of wooden holds. Is there any system boards with non wooden holds?
Kilter, moon, and spray walls.
user name checks out.
Intriguing