My big day
Dawn Alguard
coming to others, but yesterday I led a 10 cleanly at the Gunks. It
wasn't an onsight (about as far from it as you can get) but it was a 10
and I led it.
When I first started climbing I set two goals: to be a 5.10 leader and
to climb a 12. I'm by no means a 5.10 leader yet, but leading my first
10 gets me a big step closer. And maybe I'll even get that 12 someday.
The 11s are starting to seem less insane lately.
Sorry this post isn't more entertaining. It's just pure bragging and
sharing with those of you who knew me when (when it seemed like I'd be
leading 10 in about three weeks).
Dawn
Clyde
> Sorry this post isn't more entertaining.
Actually, milestones like that are much more interesting than the latest
sport-weenie 5.blah,blah,blah. Congrats!
[troll] Besides, everyone knows that Gunk 10s are much harder than
California 10s.[/troll]
Lg
> Dawn Alguard <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > Sorry this post isn't more entertaining.
Way to go, good for you! Now, if you are into superstitions and such,
you'll have to remember what you had for breakfast...maybe it was
cornflakes in your favorite bowl, one lg cup of joe from ? (i think you
like starbucks-eck:), tied in a certain way with exactly 2" of
tail...you know, rituals.
I have a weird one...if I'm ready to lead a climb and my thoughtful
partner already ties the single 8 into the sharp end, I will undo the
8, redo, and then tie in? I have no reasoning why, I just do.
Simon Isbister
> When I first started climbing I set two goals: to be a 5.10 leader and to
> climb a 12. I'm by no means a 5.10 leader yet, but leading my first 10
> gets me a big step closer. And maybe I'll even get that 12 someday. The
> 11s are starting to seem less insane lately.
Way to go! When I'm talking with non-climbers, I often say that one of the
things I like about climbing is that all of the milestones are equally
valid, but... deep inside, I know that its a bit of a simplification. There
is something about breaking into the .10s that is very different than doing
your first .7 or .8.
Congrats!
-s-
Mad Dog
Savor'em when you gett'em. Progress slowed for me dramatically at 5.10. "Real"
10's, like those at the Gunks are a true milestone. Once you get to where you
can follow a 10, there are many great routes available but as a 10 leader, the
world is at your rack.
Adrian MacNair
news:3pobg4F...@individual.net...
> This will seem like no big deal to many of you and like it's a long time
> coming to others, but yesterday I led a 10 cleanly at the Gunks. It
> wasn't an onsight (about as far from it as you can get) but it was a 10
> and I led it.
>
> When I first started climbing I set two goals: to be a 5.10 leader and
> to climb a 12. I'm by no means a 5.10 leader yet, but leading my first
> 10 gets me a big step closer. And maybe I'll even get that 12 someday.
> The 11s are starting to seem less insane lately.
That's cool. I set some goals too but it's funny because you always think
you'll be satisfied if you can reach them and then you want more after you
do. When I started finding sport 12 pretty relaxing I always thought I'd be
satsfied, but it just makes you want to do 13. And sending the Prow is
pretty stoked-worthy but now of course I want to sent a .12a on gear.
Of course that's just one aspect of the ego-driven state of my climbing
mind. A large part of me doesn't care about the numbers so much as the
experiences. Bouldering in Rumney this August I didn't know the rating of a
single problem I did but they were all rad. Numbers sometimes give you a
real sense of acheivement (and closure!) but in the end isn't it about that
one moment you have on the rock where you feel absolute concentration and
oneness with the rock? Pulling over the lip and heaving onto the summit with
a job well done? Yeah baby....
Dll
"Mad Dog"
> Savor'em when you gett'em. Progress slowed for me dramatically at 5.10.
> "Real"
> 10's, like those at the Gunks are a true milestone.
Somewhere in the 10 range is the line where I can lead something onsight off
the couch vs. I have to be out climbing at least a few times a week to get
it w/o falling. Harder 10's are rarely a sure thing for anyone I've ever
climbed with.
> Once you get to where you
> can follow a 10, there are many great routes available but as a 10 leader,
> the
> world is at your rack.
I felt this way about 8's, then 9's, then 10's, then 11's... As a 5.8-5.9
leader, I was pretty psyched on the selection at Devil's tower and around
Boulder here, when I was at that level.
- Nate
Mad Dog
>When I started finding sport 12 pretty relaxing
>it just makes you want to do 13
>now of course I want to sent a .12a on gear.
>A large part of me doesn't care about the numbers
Obviously, you live in the grade-free zone.
Mad Dog
>>Once you get to where you can follow a 10, there are many great
>>routes available but as a 10 leader, the world is at your rack.
>I felt this way about 8's, then 9's, then 10's, then 11's... As a 5.8-5.9
>leader, I was pretty psyched on the selection at Devil's tower and around
>Boulder here, when I was at that level.
Just shows how perceptions vary. Being comfortable at 5.7 in the backcountry
was a milestone for me and the other one was 10 trad. I've only occasionally
visited the state where 11 felt in control, but even when all was flowing
smothly at that grade, it didn't seem to broaden the horizon as much as 10 did.
Part of the deal is that 8 and 9 always seemed more dependent upon the date and
identity of the FA than about the difficulty of the climbing. 10 seems to be a
more consistently consolidated grade. Sure, Seneca 10s will probably feel
stiffer than Jacks Canyon 10s but those are apples and orangutans. Old 8s and
9s can be plain old awkweird and hard, respectively. But actualy, I'm like
Adrian - I rarely pay attention to what the grade is. I was bouldering in the
gym the other day, doing the jug traverse the birthday party kids use and I
didn't look at the tape a single time. And one time, at bandcamp, I stuck a
gri-gri in my chalk bag.
Dawn Alguard
> But actualy, I'm like Adrian - I rarely pay attention to what the grade is.
I've never denied that I'm a number chaser. I guess it's sad being a
number chaser when your numbers are so low, but it's a me vs. me
competition. I don't care much what anyone else does. Sure it's
annoying when some obnoxious blowhard youth shows up and starts climbing
circles around you in no time - and lets you know about it too - but
it's like when a co-worker wins the lottery or your brother gets a
promotion. Other people's good fortune always sucks.
My trouble with the Dolomites, aside from the hiking, was that the
objective hazards forced us to stick to really easy climbing. I don't
like easy climbing. Sure it's nice at the end of the day to run up
something quick and low-stress and I like doing laps on easy overhanging
routes at the gym - it stretches out my muscles and makes me feel strong
and fluid - but what I really enjoy, what keeps me hooked on climbing,
is difficulty. I like puzzling out a move or not being able to do
something some number of times and then being able to do it or that
feeling when you're hanging onto a hold past the point where it's
possible to still be hanging on.
So I chase numbers because I'm always looking for something a little bit
harder. And I don't mind that there will always be a next number to
chase because if I ever ran out of them I'd get bored. Some people like
adding the objective hazards. Me, I love me them subjective ones.
Dawn
Mr. T
> This will seem like no big deal to many of you and like it's a long time
> coming to others, but yesterday I led a 10 cleanly at the Gunks. It
> wasn't an onsight (about as far from it as you can get) but it was a 10
> and I led it.
Nice going. Does cleanly mean no falls, or does it mean the pieces
stayed in and you climbed in style? Does far from onsight mean you fell
a bunch of times, or that you had already done the route a bunch of
times on TR?
I know I'll sound like an a-hole for saying it, but to "get credit" for
leading a new grade one should have to go through something like the
"went to a new area and lead my first X, even though my stomach felt
like it was full of pop-rocks and I silently cried for my Mommy at the
crux" experience.
Chiloe
> Sorry this post isn't more entertaining. It's just pure
Pure bragging is fine, how else would this forum exist?
Congratulations on passing your milestone.
Nate wrote:
> "Mad Dog"
>
> > Savor'em when you gett'em. Progress slowed for me
> > dramatically at 5.10. "Real"
> > 10's, like those at the Gunks are a true milestone.
>
> Somewhere in the 10 range is the line where I can lead
> something onsight off the couch vs. I have to be out
> climbing at least a few times a week to get it w/o falling.
> Harder 10's are rarely a sure thing for anyone I've ever
> climbed with.
5.10 is a breakthrough grade for a lot of us. The first one
is still burned in my memory, and I'll happily brag about it
to anyone who will listen. I don't recall the other grade
milestones.
I have a mental category of breakthrough climbs, though,
where breaking through does not involve grades. One
"breakthrough" last year took three falls, the last an
honest 30 feet, before some combination of french-free,
psychological protection and struggle got me through. It's
hard to brag about that one, because the nominal grade was
5.8.
Dawn Alguard
> Nice going. Does cleanly mean no falls, or does it mean the pieces
> stayed in and you climbed in style?
Cleanly means no falls. I do believe all my pieces stayed in if you
really care. Whether or not I climbed in style, I couldn't say. I
wasn't wearing my cool bouldering chick pants that day but I did have on
a nice wicking T from EMS.
> Does far from onsight mean you fell a bunch of times, or that you had already done the route a bunch of
> times on TR?
Not only have I done it many times on TR (following) but it was my third
attempt at leading it in as many weeks (not counting the window where I
went to the Dolomites). I have that route so wired I could climb it in
my sleep. However, awake and with a rack on it turned out to be harder
than expected.
> I know I'll sound like an a-hole for saying it, but to "get credit" for
> leading a new grade one should have to go through
I think I can "get credit" for anything I've explicitly spelled out.
However, if you'd like to give me credit for leading my first 10, I did
that earlier in the year at Squamish. I led three of them, all clean,
all onsight. It's just that redpointing a 10 at the Gunks happens to be
harder.
Dawn
Mark Cato
- "Mr. T" <ted.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know I'll sound like an a-hole for saying it, but to "get credit" for
> leading a new grade one should have to go through something like the
> "went to a new area and lead my first X, even though my stomach felt
> like it was full of pop-rocks and I silently cried for my Mommy at the
> crux" experience.
So when I cried aloud for my mommy on my latest 5.3 grunt-fest, it
disqualified me from receiving credit?!? I'm using the sport tape on my
mouth rather than my fingers next time.
mark (back to the starting block)
_____________________________
Mark Cato
mdc...@andrew.cmu.edu
kellie
Well, sorry to agree, but you kind of *do* sound like a jerk on this
one, since Dawn specifically stated she didn't onsight the thing.
Dawn led a 10a, and honestly reported what she did. (Congrats, Dawn,
btw)
Sure, leading onsight is more impressive than leading a rehearsed
climb, but it's still a *lead."
That's like the people who say, "It's not a lead, because you fell."
"Really?" I always want to say. "Well, if I didn't lead it, then how
did the rope get up there?"
Julie
JSH
Paulina
> Not only have I done it many times on TR (following) but it was my third
> attempt at leading it in as many weeks (not counting the window where I
> went to the Dolomites). I have that route so wired I could climb it in
> my sleep. However, awake and with a rack on it turned out to be harder
> than expected.
So okay, Dawn, which Gunks 5.10 was it? I'm impressed btw, regardless of
style.
I was at the Gunks this weekend. Shame didn't run into you.
Cheers
Paulina
Mr. T
> - "Mr. T" <ted.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I know I'll sound like an a-hole for saying it, but to "get credit" for
> > leading a new grade one should have to go through something like the
> > "went to a new area and lead my first X, even though my stomach felt
> > like it was full of pop-rocks and I silently cried for my Mommy at the
> > crux" experience.
>
> So when I cried aloud for my mommy on my latest 5.3 grunt-fest, it
> disqualified me from receiving credit?!? I'm using the sport tape on my
> mouth rather than my fingers next time.
I heard a rumor that it helps to read posts before you reply to them. I
looked it up on snopes and didn't see it debunked yet...
keith...@louisville.edu
five tennies without feeling guilty! ;^)
>So I chase numbers because I'm always looking for something a little bit
harder.
For me the motivation is more in standing on top of something that not
many people have seen. The more beautiful and exclusive, the better.
Everything else is just practice by comparison. A case in point:
Devil's Tower, sitting out there in the middle of the prairie, just has
to be climbed to the TOP. There may be some good pitches around its
flanks, but the highest priority is to get on top at least once.
Cheers,
Keith
Mr. T
I agree with a lot of what you say, including me sounding like a jerk,
and falling, if anything, gets you more points. Still IMO what Dawn
described is more of a I'm practicing for my first real 5.X lead rather
than doing my first real 5.X lead.
After reading Dawn's reply though, maybe now I get it. The fact that
she didn't mention 3 leads at Squamish but rather feels more proud of
this rehearshed lead at the Gunks suggests that the Gunks is really the
shit and it was more like leading a hard 10/easy 11
keith...@louisville.edu
a nice wicking T from EMS.
I got the impression from earlier discussions that to climb in style at
the Gunks, you have to take top off, too.
Cheers,
Keith
Dawn Alguard
> kellie wrote:
>>Sure, leading onsight is more impressive than leading a rehearsed
>>climb, but it's still a *lead."
> this rehearshed lead at the Gunks
I can't say I love the word rehearsed. I took 7 falls "rehearsing" this
lead. Each time I tried to lead it I placed all my own gear starting
from the ground and each time I expected to pull it off. So perhaps we
could say that I was seiging it rather than rehearsing it.
And while it's true that I've followed this route a lot of times, I had
actually managed to avoid it this season prior to my first lead attempt.
After six years of climbing with people who lead 10 at the Gunks,
there's one 5.10 G left that I've never been on. And I probably never
*will* be on it for fear of blowing my one chance.
Dawn
P.S. Pualina, it was Retribution.
Sue
A lead is a lead. You can knock that one off your list. You finally got
it. Good on ya.
I was all proud after my first 10a lead, and then the B/F went and
soloed the sucker.
Nice eh?
Sue
Mark Cato
I heard a rumor that some people lack a sense of humor. I didn't believe
it until very recently.
I read the thread, including your comments. I made a joke. You didn't
laugh. Such is life. Have a good day, chief.
_____________________________
Mark Cato
mdc...@andrew.cmu.edu
Dawn Alguard
> I was all proud after my first 10a lead, and then the B/F went and
> soloed the sucker.
>
> Nice eh?
Worse even than the following in approach shoes trick.
Dawn
Dll
"Dawn Alguard"
> My trouble with the Dolomites, aside from the hiking, was that the
> objective hazards forced us to stick to really easy climbing.
I'm still hearing typical statements about your experience. Remote climbs
simply demand a lot more from a broader skill set. If you want to get on
the harder climbs in the backcountry, there are a lot more barriers. You
have to hike (often painfully early in the AM), you have to routefind, you
have to deal with larger elevation gains and distances, you have to deal
with weather often from a position of significant vulnerability, there's
often more weight to carry - did I mention snow and avis? Etc, etc. All
these things tap into and drain your overall capacity to deal. I find
cragging at any difficulty rather boring and unengaging, for example, unless
it's near the hardest I can climb and with a scarcity of good gear - which,
for some of the reasons I just mentioned, is going to be harder 5.x wise
than what I can deal with in the mountains even if I optimize and score
lucky on all other factors.
Anyway - I can pretty clearly see the alpine bug has bitten and infected
you. I think you'll be back.
- Nate
Dawn Alguard
> Anyway - I can pretty clearly see the alpine bug has bitten and infected
> you.
And my grandmother still believes I'll get married some day. I guess
you could say that committment isn't my thing.
Dawn
David Kastrup
Load of bird shoot in the nads would have taught him. Of course
_while_ he is soloing.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Dll
"Dawn Alguard"
> And my grandmother still believes I'll get married some day. I guess you
> could say that committment isn't my thing.
You don't know how many times I've heard all the things you are saying from
people (myself included) who eventually became adept backcountry climbers.
Let me ask you this - when you did your first lead, while weighed down by a
rack of gear, a rope below you and a bunch of extra crap to think about,
were you at all upset that you couldn't still climb what you were able to on
toprope? Did you for at least a little bit of time consider sport climbing
as an attractive option, or just being a toproper your whole life?
- Nate
steve m
because it wasn't at a new area. Same goes for 5.0, 5.1,
5.7, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11 and 5.12. Probably the others too.
If I never had a first 5.9 lead, I guess I never had a second
or third one, either.
I regularly tell myself I'm not a real climber, but this may be
going too far.
Steve m
Chris Smith
> I think I can "get credit" for anything I've explicitly spelled out.
> However, if you'd like to give me credit for leading my first 10, I did
> that earlier in the year at Squamish. I led three of them, all clean,
> all onsight. It's just that redpointing a 10 at the Gunks happens to be
> harder.
Hear, hear! I certainly claim credit for my first 5.7 lead, even though
it was a route that I'd previously top-roped several times and I fell
once. The next weekend I cleanly led a 5.8 that I hadn't seen before (I
won't use the term "onsight" because I've yet to figure out all the
quirks about what it means)... but all that told me is I was climbing
stuff that's too easy.
Here's where I draw the line. I don't claim credit for the 5.11b that I
climbed last weekend. That's because there's still a draw hanging from
a pin halfway up where I bailed. :)
Good job Dawn! I don't know you, but it sounds exciting.
Congratulations.
--
Chris Smith
kellie
sorry, was in a hurry and used the first word that came to mind.
"Previously climbed" would have been better.
So you can put the rope up for me on that in a couple of weeks, right?
k
kellie
"real" because it's not onsight, or not clean, or not at a new area, or
whatever. If you are the person who gets the rope up there, you
*really did* lead that pitch. Whether you hung or fell or snivelled or
pulled on gear, you still led the damn thing. And leading something is
totally different than following it. If it weren't, I could lead
everything I can follow cleanly, and that just isn't the case, much as
I wish it were so.
imo, of course.
Dawn Alguard
>
> So you can put the rope up for me on that in a couple of weeks, right?
If I don't make you do it yourself.
Dawn
rgold
Dawn Alguard wrote:
> P.S. Pualina, it was Retribution.
Ah, Retribution. A wonderful start to a new world of climbing. It was
one of those breakthrough climbs for me too. The year was, I think,
1963. I was a college sophomore with four years of general
mountaineering and two years of reasonably hard (for the day) but
extremely undergraded climbing at Devil's Lake, Wisconsin. I was at
the Gunks, and through a series of coincidences ended up paired with
one of the country's most famous Yosemite climbers. He wanted to try
Retribution. I figured I could belay well enough not to embarrass
myself or injure him. He went up and fell at the roof. Just to give
him a rest, I went up and fell at the roof. He went up again and fell
at the roof. Watching him and thinking about what he and I had tried,
I decided we were going at it all wrong. He was trying to climb it as
if it was granite, and I knew from Devil's Lake that being sneaky had
its advantages. And so I went up and sneaked past the roof before it
realized what I was up to. The roof, the Yosemite master, the assembled
crowd of spectators---and I most of all---were astonished to find that
the belay slave had tip-toed past the crux.
Blasphemy! Retribution fought back. The crack was steep, pitons had
to be placed, the moves glowered menacingly. I was now hesitant---the
trickster was going to be punished. Pointless delay increased the
fatique. The wall bulged a bit, pebbly crimps sucked the reserves from
over-stressed fingers that had never planned to be up there. Ten
seconds to hydraulic failure, all systems critical...and then without
even a whimper, Retribution gave up, handed over a finishing jug, and
let the pauper pass where only princes had heretofore tread.
kellie
Mr. T
Uh, I think this is a bit of a wild extrapolation of what I said. I
mentioned a new area, but never said anything about rules. I thought
climbers all knew there are no rules, and therefore anything I say is
just talking about my personal set of values.
If someone lives in an area without a whole lot climbing, then most of
the routes are de facto practice routes, in a sense. One might feel
more accomplishment doing a route elsewhere for obvious reasons, that
was my only point. Sorry to have sent you into such a logical tailspin,
I hope you can recover and consider yourself real again.
Mad Dog
>Mad Dog wrote:
>> But actualy, I'm like Adrian - I rarely pay attention to what the grade is.
>I've never denied that I'm a number chaser.
Well you know I was tongue in cheek. Rather than being a chaser, I'm more of an
observer/analyst. I had a friend tell me a few years ago that redpointing a 13
was within my scope. Based upon my analysis, that just wasn't going to happen,
short of some sugarmomma retiring me and going into hardcore (climbing)
training. I mean, I was well off of the steep part of the curve by that point
in time and each new subgrade was worthy of a celebration so intense 3 subgrades
would be lost for the next month.
Actually, I keep a few perspectives going at once on ratings. On one hand (eye)
you've got to consider how accurate the grade is that you're celebrating. Good
for you that you did a Gunks 10 because that's not gonna be soft. Another angle
is how you are climbing that given day. I tend to be highly influenced by my
surroundings, partners and probably the phase of the moon. I don't expect to
climb at the same level every day. And another ratings issue: Some people climb
their first 5.XY and assume they are now an XY climber. I laugh at that.
Tickling into a grade can be a long way away from consolidating it. I tend to
overachieve on the onsight - probably a fear of failure phobia - but that means
that repeating a route at my limit can prove disappointing.
>My trouble with the Dolomites, aside from the hiking, was that the
>objective hazards forced us to stick to really easy climbing.
I can appreciate both sides. When I started, I split my time between bouldering
and alpine climbing. Eventually, I put a disproportionate amount of time into
cragging (and later, into sport climbing) because I wanted to be able to do
harder routes in the backcountry where you need to solo some and fall never. If
injuries weren't such an issue, I think I'd still gravitate my difficulty time
towards bouldering. Alas I'm too feeble to lob off highballs these days and
problems 3' off the deck just don't get the pulse up as much as when your
spotter looks frighteningly tiny.
>I don't like easy climbing.
Give it time.
Mark Heyman
"Dawn Alguard" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3pobg4F...@individual.net...
>>yesterday I led a 10 cleanly at the Gunks...When I first started climbing
I set two goals: to be a 5.10 leader and
> to climb a 12.
> Dawn
I posted (or tried to post) a congrats last night but I don't see my
response now. So Congrats.
And it is great to see such a response from others too. Now off to read
them.
So congrats again, and hope to run into you this fall.
Mark H.
Clint Cummins
Fortunately we had nuts for pro and the fixed pin at the roof had just
fallen out. Being tall and skinny, I was able to cram the fingers of my
right hand in the pin scar for an undercling/fingerlock, and stretch *way*
up to slot my left fingers into a perfect lock/pin scar miles above.
I started feeling a pump on the next few moves, but the Gunks bucket
appeared in the nick of time and I bellowed a victory yell.
My partner (sometime Yosemite hardman, Andy Embick, R.I.P.) was not
as tall and took several falls trying to follow free. I felt like I had
cheated by "reaching past the crux", but it was still a nice victory
on a classic.
Clint Cummins
kellie
So it was a good thing I was working on my whining and snivelling this
weekend, then.
k
SG
Great piece
SG
SG
>> I wasn't wearing my cool bouldering chick pants that day but I did have
>> on a nice wicking T from EMS.
> Keith wrote:
> the impression from earlier discussions that to climb in style at
> the Gunks, you have to take top off, too.
...and have multiple piercing and plenty of ink.
Nice job Dawn, which route was it?
SG
>
Simon Isbister
"Dll" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:3pqfc9F...@individual.net...
>
> "Mad Dog"
>
>> Savor'em when you gett'em. Progress slowed for me dramatically at 5.10.
>> "Real"
>> 10's, like those at the Gunks are a true milestone.
>
> Somewhere in the 10 range is the line where I can lead something onsight
> off the couch vs. I have to be out climbing at least a few times a week to
> get it w/o falling. Harder 10's are rarely a sure thing for anyone I've
> ever climbed with.
I was down in Tuolumne once, talking with this really strong climber from
south america- one of the first people I had me who climbed gear .12's. I
said something one day about the "easier" grades for him, and he corrected
me- "Oh no- high 10's and 11's are still really hard, and challenging for
me." It was a real revelation, the idea that that you can be capable of a
grade at one level, but still be challenged by grades a couple steps lower.
Because that certainly hadn't been my experience in the .7-.10 range.
-s-
Martin Carpenter
"rgold" <rms...@aol.com> wrote:
> Ah, Retribution.
...
> and then without even a whimper, Retribution gave up,
> handed over a finishing jug, and let the pauper pass where
> only princes had heretofore tread.
Thanks, really nice. Have an RCGH 05.
Chris Smith
> I was down in Tuolumne once, talking with this really strong climber from
> south america- one of the first people I had me who climbed gear .12's. I
> said something one day about the "easier" grades for him, and he corrected
> me- "Oh no- high 10's and 11's are still really hard, and challenging for
> me." It was a real revelation, the idea that that you can be capable of a
> grade at one level, but still be challenged by grades a couple steps lower.
> Because that certainly hadn't been my experience in the .7-.10 range.
Interesting. It's definitely my experience. I led a 5.10 a couple days
ago... but earlier the same day, I bailed on a 5.8 and had to ask my
partner to go up and retrieve gear. But then again, maybe I'm just a
wuss.
--
Chris Smith
Mad Dog
>I was down in Tuolumne once, talking with this really strong climber from
>south america- one of the first people I had me who climbed gear .12's. I
>said something one day about the "easier" grades for him, and he corrected
>me- "Oh no- high 10's and 11's are still really hard, and challenging for
>me." It was a real revelation, the idea that that you can be capable of a
>grade at one level, but still be challenged by grades a couple steps lower.
>Because that certainly hadn't been my experience in the .7-.10 range.
I have a friend that climbs 12 trad on a good day and it can be OW 12 or
whatever. He hasn't fallen on a 10 since the first year he redpointed 10, but
when it comes to 10+ and above, you can see that he's taking a more serious
approach to the climbing. I've seen the same kind of body language from other
folks that have done even harder trad climbing - when they lead 10+ or so, they
get more deliberate and focussed. 10- and middle 10 can be pretty relaxing for
many climbers but especially if it is sustained, 10+ can be a fairly salty
grade. This harkens back to Brutus's excellent post long ago about the
different grades of 5.11 where 10+ OW was one of the harder ones. I've got that
saved somewhere but I'm too lazy to find it now. Great stuff, I assure you.
Julie
> This harkens back to Brutus's excellent post long ago about the
> different grades of 5.11 where 10+ OW was one of the harder ones.
> I've got that saved somewhere but I'm too lazy to find it now.
> Great stuff, I assure you.
>
Is that, re-harkening?
JSH
keith...@louisville.edu
>I've seen 5.11 divided into 11 different grades of increasing
>difficulty, as follows:
>5.11a 5.10d 5.11- 5.11b 5.11 5.11c 5.9 squeeze 5.11+
>5.10 OW 5.12a 5.11d
>
>Brutus
Dll
"Simon Isbister"
> I was down in Tuolumne once, talking with this really strong climber from
> south america- one of the first people I had me who climbed gear .12's.
No personal offense to anyone in this thread, but when someone starts
talking about 12s on gear, my "I'm talking to a wanker" flag pops up and my
mind drifts off somewhere else.
First, there are very, very few 12's that offer natural pro. Basically, if
there are features for decent gear, it's generally 5.11 for the same reason.
Even Eldo, one of the country's bastions of hard climbing on sparse gear,
has few if any 12's that protect through the 5.12 sections on pure natural
gear. Genesis - bolts, J'Taime - bolts, Madamme - more bolts. Even the
Evictor, a coveted 5.12 "gear" route has the leader clipping what an aid
climber would call an A1 fixed copperhead through the crux. 5.12s are
mostly bolted - and mostly bolted with a lot of bolts. There are very few
exceptions, and those exceptions tend to see once-or-twice-in-a-lifetime
ascents by about 0.0001% of the climbing population.
Second, I have been climbing for a long time, and I have lived in Boulder,
CO, for about 9 years as a climber and have met, witnessed and climbed with
some very, very strong climbers. Not once in my entire career have I as
much as witnessed the activity of a climber I would categorize as a "5.12
trad climber" in the sense most people expect of someone who might call
themselves a "5.9 trad climber". "5.9 trad climber", to most, means rarely
falls, roofs, offwidths, face, cracks, day, night, good gear, sparse, gear -
capable and collected on the sharp end. I've never seen that out of anyone,
anywhere at 5.12. 11+ max, and they are very, very rare and memorable
birds.
- Nate
A. Cairns
keith...@louisville.edu wrote:
Well done, Dawn.
The post vanished from my server, but earlier in the thread I know you said
that Retribution is harder than the 5.10s you led at Squamish. I'd compare
the crux of Retribution to the crux of the second pitch of Movin' to Montana,
a Squamish 5.10d, and we know what that means, as indicated above, so
congratulations on your first harder-than-11a.
(In the new Squamish guide the former second pitch of Movin' to Montana is
now the first pitch and the former first pitch is listed as a separate
climb.)
Andy Cairns
Sue
wrote:
> "Simon Isbister"
>
> > I was down in Tuolumne once, talking with this really strong climber from
> > south america- one of the first people I had me who climbed gear .12's.
>
> No personal offense to anyone in this thread, but when someone starts
> talking about 12s on gear, my "I'm talking to a wanker" flag pops up and my
> mind drifts off somewhere else.
>
> First, there are very, very few 12's that offer natural pro. Basically, if
> there are features for decent gear, it's generally 5.11 for the same reason.
> Even Eldo, one of the country's bastions of hard climbing on sparse gear,
> has few if any 12's that protect through the 5.12 sections on pure natural
> gear. Genesis - bolts, J'Taime - bolts, Madamme - more bolts. Even the
> Evictor, a coveted 5.12 "gear" route has the leader clipping what an aid
> climber would call an A1 fixed copperhead through the crux. 5.12s are
> mostly bolted - and mostly bolted with a lot of bolts. There are very few
> exceptions, and those exceptions tend to see once-or-twice-in-a-lifetime
> ascents by about 0.0001% of the climbing population.
I've thought about this for um like 30 seconds...
how about cloud tower in RR 12a
http://www.climbingredrocks.com/rock/db/juniper_canyon/cloud_tower/cloud_
tower.html. the crux is gear. The SO climbed it last year.
Or how about equinox in Josh 12c. gear.
Leave it to Beaver in Josh 12a.
http://climbingjtree.com/rock/db/real_hidden_valley/sports_challenge_rock
/leave_it_to_beaver__aka_the_beaver_.html
Starving in Stereo at woodson. 12a. gear.
I'm sure the Valley types will pipe in big time...
Dll
"Sue"
> how about cloud tower in RR 12a
Microlenght crux - not to mention this climb would not be a 12 outside RR.
> Or how about equinox in Josh 12c. gear.
> Leave it to Beaver in Josh 12a.
Know many who have walked up to the base of either of these climbs, dropped
the rope, laced up the shoes and climbed them something even remotely like
the many surrounding 10's and 11's get regularly climbed?
> I'm sure the Valley types will pipe in big time...
Sheesh - HOME of the wankers. Big time. Crucifix, Seperate, yada. I've
spent a lot of time down there listening to people spray. None the less,
ascents of these routes onsight with no falls are extremely rare, which says
something given the large international draw. Someone bagging Astroman with
no falls, at a mere 11c, is a very rare event that definitely gets talked
about with respect.
- Nate
Dawn Alguard
>
> Interesting. It's definitely my experience. I led a 5.10 a couple days
> ago... but earlier the same day, I bailed on a 5.8 and had to ask my
> partner to go up and retrieve gear. But then again, maybe I'm just a
> wuss.
On my big day, I started by leading my 10. Then I led a 9 that's known
to be thin and a tiny bit run out (Higher Stannard). It wasn't an
onsight either but I felt good about it. Then I moved down another
notch to 8 (Glypnod). That one was an onsight and I blew it. It was
too good a day to feel bad about it, but it was typical of my experience
at the Gunks. 7s are even harder than 8s.
Dawn
Sue
at woodson.
Dawn Alguard
> Let me ask you this - when you did your first lead, while weighed down by a
> rack of gear, a rope below you and a bunch of extra crap to think about,
> were you at all upset that you couldn't still climb what you were able to on
> toprope?
I didn't really have that experience. I started leading so early that I
often didn't know how hard I could climb, which I'd find out by falling.
But even if I had, I knew I loved placing gear right from the
beginning. From the TR of my first trad lead:
"There was a rhythm to placing the piece, hanging the draw, pulling up
the rope, and clipping that was like a memory from another lifetime."
Meanwhile, there's a rhythm to hiking that makes me want to puke and
always has. My usual refrain is: why is climbing so much fun and
walking uphill so much not fun? There's no way for me to prove that
I'll never change my mind, but it hasn't happened yet.
Dawn
A. Cairns
rgold wrote:
Many thanks for that story.
Retribution and Nosedive are quite public and the anxiety of being watched
is often part of the challenge. In 1963 I can picture just how amazed the
assembled crowd of 5 Appies and an Ivy Leaguer or 2 would have been. You
would have vaulted into the Gunks elite although the more notorious
breakthroughs were Coexistence and Try Again, 10+ in the first Williams
guide.
I identify with another part of your story. On a wet day in the mid 70s
some people were working on Yellow Wall and I got a try and pulled the
crux. One person said, "What did he do?". Another answered, "I don't know,
but it looked pretty technical." It was the Devil's Lake effect.
About finding oneself in good company: it was a boost to me to see John
Bragg happy after leading Nosedive, although he did say, "Not bad for
[handicap]."
Andy Cairns
Dll
"Sue"
Wank, wank, wank..you're giving me headache.
> man. How could I forget Romantic Warrior in the needles or lie detector
> at woodson.
My Point, Sue, is not that 5.12's don't exist - my point is that people
capable of climbing them onsight the way a 5.9 "trad climber" would be
expected to able to climb a 5.9 is very, very rare. My second point is that
the cruxes on these 12's tend to be fixed rather than natural gear. Yes,
Sue, there are many exceptions of which I am quite certain I can name at
least 2x as many as you can look up on the internet.
Further, most of these rare acents are redpoints and/or performed with
pre-placed gear.
BTW - how many 12s on gear have you climbed, at any style?
- Nate
Clint Cummins
>> > I was down in Tuolumne once, talking with this really strong climber from
>> > south america- one of the first people I had me who climbed gear .12's.
Nate wrote:
>> First, there are very, very few 12's that offer natural pro. Basically, if
>> there are features for decent gear, it's generally 5.11 for the same reason.
>> Even Eldo, ...
I'm sure this is good reasoning for Eldo, since the rock is featured.
Other places, such as those Sue mentioned, have some long finger cracks with
poor feet that can create the gear 5.12s. Although at many places over
time sport routes have been added to dilute the percentage of 5.12 gear routes.
Looking at the 1986 Tuolumne guide (where Simon was at the time; not sure how
long ago, though), there was only one bolt-protected 12:
Mystery Achievement
and 5 gear protected 12s:
Body and Soul, Heart of Stone, High Heels, Goldfinger, Boa
Since then a lot of bolted 12s have been added....
In Yosemite Valley, Jardine firmly established the 5.12 grade, all on gear
protected cracks. The bolting came later. As for what percentage gets
climbed, I'm sure a lot more bolted 12s at Jailhouse get ascents than
5.12 cracks, but they do get some traffic.
Have fun,
Clint
bkr
> This will seem like no big deal to many of you and like it's a long time
> coming to others, but yesterday I led a 10 cleanly at the Gunks. It
> wasn't an onsight (about as far from it as you can get) but it was a 10
> and I led it.
>
> When I first started climbing I set two goals: to be a 5.10 leader and
> 10 gets me a big step closer. And maybe I'll even get that 12 someday.
> The 11s are starting to seem less insane lately.
>
> Sorry this post isn't more entertaining. It's just pure bragging and
> sharing with those of you who knew me when (when it seemed like I'd be
> leading 10 in about three weeks).
>
> Dawn
>
Way to go, Dawn! Congratulations from a never to be gunks 10 leader.
(or probably follower for that matter.)
bkr
Clint Cummins
>> Or how about equinox in Josh 12c. gear.
>> Leave it to Beaver in Josh 12a.
>
>Know many who have walked up to the base of either of these climbs, dropped
>the rope, laced up the shoes and climbed them something even remotely like
>the many surrounding 10's and 11's get regularly climbed?
>
>> I'm sure the Valley types will pipe in big time...
>
>Sheesh - HOME of the wankers. Big time. Crucifix, Seperate, yada. I've
>spent a lot of time down there listening to people spray. None the less,
>ascents of these routes onsight with no falls are extremely rare, which says
>something given the large international draw. Someone bagging Astroman with
>no falls, at a mere 11c, is a very rare event that definitely gets talked
>about with respect.
didn't talk about 5.12 onsights. Just gear or bolted. And Simon did
not say the guy from south america onsighted gear 12s. I'm not sure what
onsight has to do with gear vs. bolted (unless getting the gear in is
tricky or something; often not the case on 12s - not easy but not particularly
tricky with cams).
I'd have to agree that onsighting or just freeing without falls all
the varied 5.11 pitches on Astroman is unusual, though.
Dll
"Clint Cummins"
> Umm, you are changing the rules a bit.
I don't think so. If someone had to take a bunch of falls before they were
successful on a 5.9 "trad" route, would you call them a 5.9 leader on gear?
Most wouldn't, I believe. That was my point. Simon says he met someone who
claimed the 5.12 grade while leading on gear. I'm expecting, based on my
experience and observations, that he either met superman or a wanker. Do
you automatically assume you are talking to a hangdogger because they are
claiming they climb 5.12 on gear? Anyone can hangdog their way up a
reasonably protected 12, perhaps even redpointing it someday. Those
climbers are a dime a dozen.
- Nate
Sue
wrote:
Nate there are lots of 12's out there that are gear only and that people
do onsight them. Are there as many 5.12's as 5.9's of course not. I am
merely objecting to your statement that 5.12 trad climbs have fixed gear
at the crux, and that to onsight them is rare.
I can think of 3 my friends off the top of my head, who are total
unknowns in the climbing world that have onsighted gear 12's. Do they
always climb at that grade. NO. but neither does someone who leads 5.9.
As for me, what does my climbing ability have to do with it? If I can't
do it myself does that make me unqualified to comment on it?
Mad Dog
Mad Dog
>Wank, wank, wank..you're giving me headache.
Good work, Sue, now go for the jugular.
>My Point, Sue, is not that 5.12's don't exist - my point is that people
>capable of climbing them onsight the way a 5.9 "trad climber" would be
>expected to able to climb a 5.9 is very, very rare.
And to get back to the post(s) you were referring to when this subtopic
blossomed, neither Simon nor I made claims about how common 12 trad climbers
are. I've said here a few times that the well-rounded 11 climber is a rare
beast. But the guy I referred to has in fact done 12 trad first ascents onsight
at Indian Creek - no bolts, no spot crux. Sustained offwidth in one case that
had plenty of witnii. Actually, he tries not to grade his climbs but a few have
been repeated enough to get consensus.
>My second point is that
>the cruxes on these 12's tend to be fixed rather than natural gear.
Well, he did put in a fixed anchor. Does that ruin it for you? The OW I
mentioned above took something like sixteen number 4 Camalots. He had to troll
all over IC to borrow that many. Looked like he'd run through offwidth hell
wearing a velcro gear sling.
"That's not a rack - now THAT's a RACK!"
>BTW - how many 12s on gear have you climbed, at any style?
What the fuck does that have to do with the content of what Sue brought up?
I've dogged my way up gear 12s and I can't say the process was any more
fulfilling than cleanly toproping the green crimper problem in the gym.
Martin Carpenter
"Dll" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> No personal offense to anyone in this thread, but when
> someone starts talking about 12s on gear, my "I'm talking
> to a wanker" flag pops up and my mind drifts off somewhere
> else.
...
> 5.12s are mostly bolted - and mostly bolted with a lot of bolts.
5.12 YDS =~ 6b British Technical Grade.
http://www.hotpud.com/ukroutes/RouteResults?tc0=33&tc1=100&tc2=1&lmt=20
Pay attention to the E-numbers.
Sounds to me like you need to overhaul YDS. Heck, even <<mes amis francais>>
have managed a "commitment" rating for long/alpine routes.
http://home.primus.ca/~dooley/climbing/stories/britgrading.html
Dll
"Sue"
> Nate there are lots of 12's out there that are gear only and that people
> do onsight them.
Pick up any guidebook and look at the percentage to other routes. Then, of
those climbs, toss out the ones with fixed pro through the hard sections.
> Are there as many 5.12's as 5.9's of course not.
No, there definitely is not.
> I can think of 3 my friends off the top of my head, who are total
> unknowns in the climbing world that have onsighted gear 12's.
Not to rip on anyone you know, but, for example, Cloud Tower is basically a
moderate 5.10 climb with one 11 move that's been inflated to 12- over the
years. A lot of the people who go up there nail that move. A lot of people
go up there specically because that 1 move is 5.12 so they can, it often
seems to me, talk about 5.12 when they are done or to add an "onsight 5.12"
to their spray scripts rather than saying they did a bushy mostly mediocre
quality climb that day. Does nailing that 1 move one day at 11am make them
5.12 climbers? Not to me, not even close. I'm far more impressed with
ascents of far lesser graded climbs.
> Again, Do they
> always climb at that grade. NO. but neither does someone who leads 5.9.
We definitely disagree here. If someone claims to me they lead 5.9, I'm
assuming I'm talking to someone who can get on just about any 5.9 and have
perhaps an 80% or better chance of success on it. It suggests to me they've
done dozens of 5.9's, in several areas, on several different kinds of rock,
face, crack, maybe a few OWs or roofs, without falling. Can your 3 friends
say this? If so, they are RARE. Very rare. And you are rare and
definitely "in the scene" to call a whole 3 of them friends.
> If I can't
> do it myself does that make me unqualified to comment on it?
Like many things discussed here, it makes the conversation slightly more
interesting.
- Nate
Dll
"Mad Dog"
> neither Simon nor I made claims about
> how common 12 trad climbers are.
Simon mentioned how surprised he was that a "12 gear climber" would have
trouble on a mere 10+. My point sort of addresses the myth.
> But the guy I referred to has in fact done 12 trad first ascents onsight
> at Indian Creek - no bolts, no spot crux.
Great.
BTW, 12s at the Creek, where you can quickly slam yourself on toprope at any
moment, are a unique thing from most other areas. Also, crack climbing is
one of those things where 1 person's 12 can very easily be another's 9 or
10. There are a lot of 5.12 onsights and redpoints at the Creek because of
this - probably more than a typical sport climbing area. Personally, I've
done more 12s (though never quite an onsight on lead) around the Creek than
all the areas I've visited in CO combined. I don't really feel they were
nearly as demanding, nor would I ever deem myself a 5.12 climber as a
result. Indian Creek definitely has a lot of exceptions to what I am
talking about.
- Nate
Dingus Milktoast
to a higher standard than 5.12 leaders.
Lots of people seem to hold Nate's opinion that unless you've led 5.9
naked and bound, at night and in the rain, on 3 different types of
rock, on at least 2 continents, you ain't a 5.9 leader.
But send a single 5.12 and its all, 'she's a 5.12 climber.' (said real
fast, California-one-word-to-a-sentence-style)
That just isn't fair. From now on I'm dropping the 'in the rain'
requirement. I always thought that was bullshit anyway.
DMT
Simon Isbister
"A. Cairns" <lek...@intergate.ca> wrote in message
news:43399EFD...@intergate.ca...
> (In the new Squamish guide the former second pitch of Movin' to Montana is
> now the first pitch and the former first pitch is listed as a separate
> climb.)
And people say the McLane guide lacks clarity...
Simon Isbister
"Clint Cummins" <cl...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:dhc97t$gak$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> Nate wrote:
> Umm, you are changing the rules a bit. In your prior post, you
> didn't talk about 5.12 onsights. Just gear or bolted. And Simon did
> not say the guy from south america onsighted gear 12s. I'm not sure what
> onsight has to do with gear vs. bolted (unless getting the gear in is
> tricky or something; often not the case on 12s - not easy but not
> particularly
> tricky with cams).
The actual accomplishments of the guy I met is besides the point (besides my
point, at least)- he was significantly stronger than me (not a huge
accomplishment), and had some observations about difficulty and grades that
struck me as interesting.
However, Nate's observations are certainly valid- there is alot more to
"trad" climbing than just placing the gear, rather than clipping bolts.
Dave Smart wrote an edtorial in Gripped (a Canadian climbing magazine) a
year or two ago that made the distinction between trad climbing and
sport-gear climbing. Working a route till you have it wired, planning out
exactly what piece you will place where, and then leaving the ground with
those exact pieces racked in order, and getting the red-point, can hardly be
considered trad climbing. I'm not trying to take away from the significance
of many ascents that used that approach, and I certainly believe that they
are of a higher standard than red-points of bolted line, but calling it a
trad acsent just doesn't seem to be completely accurate.
-s-
Thor Lancelot Simon
>
>> I was down in Tuolumne once, talking with this really strong climber from
>> south america- one of the first people I had me who climbed gear .12's.
>
>No personal offense to anyone in this thread, but when someone starts
>talking about 12s on gear, my "I'm talking to a wanker" flag pops up and my
>mind drifts off somewhere else.
>
>First, there are very, very few 12's that offer natural pro.
Unless, of course, you're in the Gunks.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be
abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
Sue
wrote:
> "Sue"
>
> > Again, Do they
> > always climb at that grade. NO. but neither does someone who leads 5.9.
>
> We definitely disagree here. If someone claims to me they lead 5.9, I'm
> assuming I'm talking to someone who can get on just about any 5.9 and have
> perhaps an 80% or better chance of success on it. It suggests to me they've
> done dozens of 5.9's, in several areas, on several different kinds of rock,
> face, crack, maybe a few OWs or roofs, without falling. Can your 3 friends
> say this?
How did you get from climbing 5.12 to being a 5.12 climber? and as
Dingus said it doing in blindfolded nekkid and in the dark? YOU turned
it into simon was wanking b/c his friend led 5.12 on gear with
In article <3ptjfiF...@individual.net>, "Dll" <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
> "Simon Isbister"
>
> > I was down in Tuolumne once, talking with this really strong climber from
> > south america- one of the first people I had me who climbed gear .12's.
>
simon didn't say his friend was a 5.12 climber he said he led 5.12 on
gear.
> No personal offense to anyone in this thread, but when someone starts
> talking about 12s on gear, my "I'm talking to a wanker" flag pops up and my
> mind drifts off somewhere else.
and further you said
> First, there are very, very few 12's that offer natural pro.
and
>5.12s are
> mostly bolted - and mostly bolted with a lot of bolts. There are very few
> exceptions, and those exceptions tend to see once-or-twice-in-a-lifetime
> ascents by about 0.0001% of the climbing population.
And I think that if I can name a bunch of them right off the bat and I
know people who have led them and onsighted then that your statements
aren't as true as you'd like to think. You can quibble over Cloud
tower as much as you want, you're conveniently ignoring the other
examples I gave you.
> If so, they are RARE. Very rare. And you are rare and
> definitely "in the scene" to call a whole 3 of them friends.
I'm not at all in the scene and neither are these guys. That would be
Boulder.
Hal Murray
>grade at one level, but still be challenged by grades a couple steps lower.
>Because that certainly hadn't been my experience in the .7-.10 range.
Ever done a John Long 5.7? :)
The old timers were pretty good at offwidths and squeezes. Are they
sandbags by modern standards, or are modern climbers just not good
at that sort of route?
--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California. So are all my
other mailboxes. Please do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited
commercial e-mail to my suespammers.org address or any of my other addresses.
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
Dll
"Sue"
> YOU turned
> it into simon was wanking b/c his friend led 5.12 on gear with
Simon, DMT and I are on the same page. No idea where you are.
> you're conveniently ignoring the other
> examples I gave you.
No, I'm not. Onsight ascents of these climbs are rare, like I said. You
are dreaming and/or showing your cluelessness if you believe anything
otherwise. Romantic Warrior, for example. How many onsight or a couple
silly falls kind of ascents has this seen? Big fat zero, right? And how
many people, like you for example, have mentioned the climb's name in
conversation? 500? 1000? That's my point, and you as a non-5.12 climber
prove it nicely. 5.12 is by far the most wanked about grade in the YDS.
I've found that at least when someone talks about 5.13, it seems a lot more
of them have actually climbed one and a lot fewer of them claim to be "5.13
climbers".
- Nate
Mad Dog
>I think Nate makes an excellent observation, that 5.9 leaders are held
>to a higher standard than 5.12 leaders.
Probably a statistical and perspectivical phenomenon.
>Lots of people seem to hold Nate's opinion that unless you've led 5.9
>naked and bound, at night and in the rain, on 3 different types of
>rock, on at least 2 continents, you ain't a 5.9 leader.
The 3rd kind of rock on the second continent in the rain was a sticking point
for me for months.
>That just isn't fair. From now on I'm dropping the 'in the rain'
>requirement. I always thought that was bullshit anyway.
But you left out "with a gobie on your left nut" so you've gotten off easy.
Mad Dog
>BTW, 12s at the Creek, where you can quickly slam yourself on toprope at any
>moment, are a unique thing from most other areas. Also, crack climbing is
>one of those things where 1 person's 12 can very easily be another's 9 or
>10. There are a lot of 5.12 onsights and redpoints at the Creek because of
>this - probably more than a typical sport climbing area. Personally, I've
>done more 12s (though never quite an onsight on lead) around the Creek than
>all the areas I've visited in CO combined. I don't really feel they were
>nearly as demanding, nor would I ever deem myself a 5.12 climber as a
>result. Indian Creek definitely has a lot of exceptions to what I am
>talking about.
So plugging a cam in makes the next move easier? But that means I'd have to
carry alot of cams since I want my TR anchors every 3', soft rock and all.
OK, you're right, I'm wrong - he's obviously not a 12 trad leader, even though
he's onsighted or redpointed them on basalt, granite, limestone and sandstone in
three countries and four parts of Arkansas. Then again, he only claims to be a
10 climber on a good day, so he won't be too broken up when I give him the bad
news. But if he's done that 13 crack climb at Red Rocks, does that at least
qualify him as a 10+ leader in your system?
No? Damn, you're hard, Nate.
Sue
wrote:
> "Sue"
>
> > YOU turned
> > it into simon was wanking b/c his friend led 5.12 on gear with
>
> Simon, DMT and I are on the same page. No idea where you are.
well maybe I've missed your point. you keep changing it after all. from
> No personal offense to anyone in this thread, but when someone starts
> talking about 12s on gear, my "I'm talking to a wanker" flag pops up and my
> mind drifts off somewhere else.
>
> First, there are very, very few 12's that offer natural pro.
to
> My Point, Sue, is not that 5.12's don't exist - my point is that people
> capable of climbing them onsight the way a 5.9 "trad climber" would be
> expected to able to climb a 5.9 is very, very rare. My second point is that
> the cruxes on these 12's tend to be fixed rather than natural gear.
> > you're conveniently ignoring the other
> > examples I gave you.
>
> No, I'm not.
I guess you're not. RR doesn't count b/c it's soft. Indian creek doesn't
count b/c its handsize dependent, The valley doesn't count etc.
> Onsight ascents of these climbs are rare, like I said. You
> are dreaming and/or showing your cluelessness if you believe anything
> otherwise. Romantic Warrior, for example.
The only person I know that has climbed in onsighted it. He led ever
pitch as well. thats why I brought it up. I am not exactly in the
scene.
> and you as a non-5.12 climber prove it nicely.
The 5.12 moves I do right now are getting in and out of the shower.
Clint Cummins
>>First, there are very, very few 12's that offer natural pro.
Thor Lancelot Simon <t...@rek.tjls.com> wrote:
>Unless, of course, you're in the Gunks.
or Indian Creek, Yosemite, Tuolumne, the Needles (Sequioa N.F.),
Joshua Tree, Mt. Woodson, Index Town Wall, Squamish, Veedauwoo, or
Devil's Tower.
I know there are a lot of sport 12s out there but I guess the enduro crack
12s are the ones I think of, so I can't ignore them very easily.
As for how often they are onsighted, no doubt rarely, like Nate said.
But I'm not particularly interested in trying to decide if the guy
Simon I. met from south america was a poser or not. (I doubt the usual
"trial by internet" could decide such a thing). I'm more interested
in the proportion of bolted vs. non bolted 12s. Even though that was
apparently not Nate's intended point at the time he stated it.
And I agree with Simon I. that there is more to onsighting a hard crack
than just placing the pro. Not to imply that I have any experience doing
this at the 5.12 level.
Thor Lancelot Simon
Hal Murray <hmu...@suespammers.org> wrote:
>> It was a real revelation, the idea that that you can be capable of a
>>grade at one level, but still be challenged by grades a couple steps lower.
>>Because that certainly hadn't been my experience in the .7-.10 range.
>
>Ever done a John Long 5.7? :)
Me, I dunno. But, since we're all spewing about hard "easy" offwidths --
has anyone here led the 5.8 offwidth at Olmstead Point? I wouldn't claim
to be a super duper offwidth climber by any standard, but...damn. I've
lead 5.9 offwidths at Vedauwoo that were a lot softer than that bastard.
melissa
Dll wrote:
> Not once in my entire career have I as
> much as witnessed the activity of a climber I would categorize as a "5.12
> trad climber" in the sense most people expect of someone who might call
> themselves a "5.9 trad climber".
I can think of one possibility (Peter Croft) but most of the ultra mega
superstars are definately not in that category. If they were, El Cap,
Half Dome, and the Leaning Tower wouldn't have Mini Traxion Via Ferrata
running all over them.
The scariest pitch I ever watched/belayed was by my SO who is one of
the best onsight climbers of which I am personally aware. It was rated
10c, and he made a point of getting himself in top shape for the style
of climbing before even attempting it.
Congrats on your route, Dawn!
Dll
"Mad Dog"
> So plugging a cam in makes the next move easier?
Hell yes - more so that you are simply able to at any moment, even if you
don't. Most will agree that most energy at these grades is lost to fear,
hesitation about being above gear and overgripping. What is 5.12 distilled
to just the moves anyway - V3?
> OK, you're right, I'm wrong - he's obviously not a 12 trad leader.
Did I say I doubted you or doubted that anyone here knows a solid 12
climber? No. Just pointing out IC is a soft example, your only example.
Ruff ruff, as usual.
- Nate
Dll
"melissa"
> I can think of one possibility (Peter Croft) but most of the ultra mega
> superstars are definately not in that category.
Unless you talk to Sue.
> If they were, El Cap,
> Half Dome, and the Leaning Tower wouldn't have Mini Traxion Via Ferrata
> running all over them.
I think we're also on the same page. Let's see - could we call a few of the
contemporary 1 day free ascents somewhat close to onsight, even if rehersed
and they fell? I'd say 15-30 pitches up without aiders is operating at the
grade, even if you take a few falls. How many ascents are we talking here -
a dozen or so in the past 10 years in a top international area, 10's of
thousands of climbing visitors out of perhaps a million or two climbers in
the world? Rare. Very rare. Croft is extremely rare.
Like perhaps you are referring to above, I've seen guys I won't name working
pitches on Lurking, Salathe, Nose - 5.12 wasn't going down very well at all.
Highly rehersed for success. I'm sure there exist a few who do better, but
I haven't personally seen them myself.
> The scariest pitch I ever watched/belayed was by my SO who is one of
> the best onsight climbers of which I am personally aware. It was rated
> 10c, and he made a point of getting himself in top shape for the style
> of climbing before even attempting it.
10c - with all the 12 climbers in Sue's black book, I can't imagine there's
even room for a 10c climber.
- Nate
Mad Dog
>Did I say I doubted you or doubted that anyone here knows a solid 12
>climber? No. Just pointing out IC is a soft example, your only example.
>Ruff ruff, as usual.
I could have listed numerous gear 12s on a variety of rock types on a number of
continents. But as Sue's example has already proven, that approach is
meaningless to your wandering perspective. In fact, I could point out a few
12r/s routes that were FA'ed onsight right in your own back yard but I'm not
confident that would mean anything either, even though you act as if the
perpetual TR nature makes IC lines soft. If one looks at the distribution of
all-gear trad routes out there, it's not surprising that the curve drops like a
rock by the time you pass 11c. But that does not discount what the few, the
proud, the (you didn't think I was gonna say "the Marines" didja?) gifted few
have accomplished. And in that context, given my earlier post, it shows just
how serious an "only" 10d trad line can be.
So ruff ruff that, kitty cat.
Lg
a tunnel, you ain't trad climbin'!!!
yea, and there's that Ridge Route at Seneca, some sick little moves,
just 5.7 oh yea...just go there and do it.
David Kastrup
Yeah, a hailstorm is just as valid.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Ed Seedhouse
wrote:
>
>Dll wrote:
>> Not once in my entire career have I as
>> much as witnessed the activity of a climber I would categorize as a "5.12
>> trad climber" in the sense most people expect of someone who might call
>> themselves a "5.9 trad climber".
>
>I can think of one possibility (Peter Croft)
Peter is a lot more than a "possibility" as a 5.12 trad climber. Heck I
watched him lead "Sentry Box" at Squamish back in the 80's. He was
totally solid and in control the whole way, putting pro in the crack as
he went. Not even a sign of a slip. One of the more impressive
performances I've seen.
Ed Seedhouse,
Victoria, B.C.
A. Cairns
Dingus Milktoast wrote:
> I think Nate makes an excellent observation, that 5.9 leaders are held
> to a higher standard than 5.12 leaders.
>
> Lots of people seem to hold Nate's opinion that unless you've led 5.9
> naked and bound, at night and in the rain, on 3 different types of
> rock, on at least 2 continents, you ain't a 5.9 leader.
>
> But send a single 5.12 and its all, 'she's a 5.12 climber.' (said real
> fast, California-one-word-to-a-sentence-style)
Agree this is BS.
> That just isn't fair. From now on I'm dropping the 'in the rain'
> requirement. I always thought that was bullshit anyway.
This is not BS. It is a shadow category of YDS. Squamish pale twin to
Yos. I'm only up to 5.8. Will start our own mag someday.
Andy Cairns
steve m
<Did I say I doubted you or doubted that anyone here knows a solid
<12 climber? No.
No indeed. What he said was:
<when someone starts talking about 12s on gear, my "I'm talking to
<a wanker" flag pops up...
See the difference?
Steve
Dll
"steve m"
I did not automatically assume the conversation was ABOUT a wanker. That's
the difference you see? The supposed 5.12 climber is absent in all cases
here, and elsewhere, it often seems. That's my point. However, my real
point is that a Gunks 5.10 lead is pretty high end, certainly not to be
diminished by empty talk of harder grades.
- Nate
Simon Isbister
"Mad Dog" <mad6...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dhd0d...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Dingus Milktoast says...
>
>>That just isn't fair. From now on I'm dropping the 'in the rain'
>>requirement. I always thought that was bullshit anyway.
>
> But you left out "with a gobie on your left nut" so you've gotten off
> easy.
>
How about "after dark"? Can we replace the rain bit with darkness?
-s-
Chris Kantarjiev
> How about "after dark"? Can we replace the rain bit with darkness?
>
Nah, you needed to satisfy the after dark requirement to get into the 5.7 club.
Simon Isbister
"kellie" <kellie...@urscorp.com> wrote in message
news:1127768583.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> that was beautiful.
>
Yeah, that totally made plowing through all the "5.12 wankers" posts worth
while.
-s-
Mad Dog
>However, my real point is that a Gunks 5.10 lead is pretty high end,
>certainly not to be diminished by empty talk of harder grades.
Why didn't you say so in the first place? And please define "empty talk". Does
it mean that the routes don't exist, that they are soft or that they've never
been climbed in a style that is agreeable?
You would have been a champion maze-builder, Nate.
SG
>
>> How about "after dark"? Can we replace the rain bit with darkness?
>>
> Nah, you needed to satisfy the after dark requirement to get into the 5.7
> club.
That would be naked and climbing Shockley's under a full moon lit night.
Dawn Alguard
No, Shockley's is 5.6. Naked is the requirement for those breaking into
the 5.6 grade. By 7, naked is assumed.
Dawn
Sue
wrote:
> However, my real
> point is that a Gunks 5.10 lead is pretty high end, certainly not to be
> diminished by empty talk of harder grades.
This would have been so much easier if you had just said that in the
first place. I don't think anyone here is trying to dimish Dawn's
accomplishment, least of all me, the world's most chickenshit leader.
See I thought Simon's earlier point was a good one, before we got all
distracted. Specifically:
In article <Emc_e.277220$HI.220168@edtnps84>,
"Simon Isbister" <simoni...@telus.net> wrote:
> I
> said something one day about the "easier" grades for him, and he corrected
> me- "Oh no- high 10's and 11's are still really hard, and challenging for
> me."
I've heard that from a number of people who climb a lot harder than me.
and I think its probably true.
bkr
> Sue <shop...@TAKEOUTucsd.edu> writes:
>
>
>>A lead is a lead. You can knock that one off your list. You finally
>>got it. Good on ya.
>>
>>I was all proud after my first 10a lead, and then the B/F went and
>>soloed the sucker.
>>
>>Nice eh?
>
>
> Load of bird shoot in the nads would have taught him. Of course
> _while_ he is soloing.
>
Then again, she might like that part and not want to fill it with birdshot.
bkr
SG
All of this noise aside...great job on the lead.
"
Chiloe
> All of this noise aside...great job on the lead.
Well, yes, and even moreso...great job on the post.
Together with last week's "death" thread, and with
a big hand from Nate, it's brought the wreck at
least momentarily back to life. Noisy as should be.