Sandbagged routes
NoHorses
I don't know if this quesion has ever been asked here, so I'll ask it
anyway:
What is the most sandbagged rating that you've ever seen on a route?
(MY answer= Stick to What? at Joshua Tree. It was rated 5.9 when I did
it, but to me, it feels like a 5.10c. It has since been upgraded to 5.10a.
Also:
What is the most overrated route that you have ever done?
(MY answer would have to be Post Orgasmic Deppression( 5.11a at Pinnacles
National Monument) It feels more like a continuous 5.9+.
Mike
By walking barefoot in the woods, I demonstrate that I am more at home there than those who would travel the trails wearing boots which protect them from all sensation.
~Visit my webpage at:
http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/6736
Tony Bubb
NoHorses wrote:
>
> I don't know if this quesion has ever been asked here, so I'll ask it
> anyway:
>
> What is the most sandbagged rating that you've ever seen on a route?
>
> (MY answer= Stick to What? at Joshua Tree. It was rated 5.9 when I did
> it, but to me, it feels like a 5.10c. It has since been upgraded to 5.10a.
Umph Slot, a 5.9
(now rated 5.11, fat-ness depandant)
> Also:
> What is the most overrated route that you have ever done?
>
> (MY answer would have to be Post Orgasmic Deppression( 5.11a at Pinnacles
> National Monument) It feels more like a continuous 5.9+.
> Mike
SOmething at Red Rocks... Crimson Chrysalis???
Chris Weaver
NoHorses wrote:
> What is the most overrated route that you have ever done?
To which Tony Bubb replied:
> SOmething at Red Rocks... Crimson Chrysalis???
I've gotta second that opinion. CC has got to be the worst reverse sandbag
route I've ever been on. Maybe *maybe* a 5.7 move or two on it, and some
guidebooks rate it 5.9.
Chris Weaver
John Young
In article <19970624060...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
NoHorses <noho...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know if this quesion has ever been asked here, so I'll ask it
>anyway:
>
>
> What is the most sandbagged rating that you've ever seen on a route?
>
> (MY answer= Stick to What? at Joshua Tree. It was rated 5.9 when I did
>it, but to me, it feels like a 5.10c. It has since been upgraded to 5.10a.
How about "Totally Tammy" at New River Gorge, originally rated 5.8 now 10a.
J
Russ Walling
NoHorses wrote:
> I don't know if this quesion has ever been asked here, so I'll ask it
> anyway:
> What is the most sandbagged rating that you've ever seen on a route?
Doggie Do in the Valley. Rated 5.10a, feels like 5.15e.
The Texas Flake on El Cap. 5.7? Felt like 5.17d.
> Also:
> What is the most overrated route that you have ever done?
Comfortably Numb in Joshua Tree. Initially rated like 11d, felt like
hard 5.9. I think it is now rated 5.11a.
Malice in Bucketland in Hueco, rated 5.10, might be 5.7
YMMV,
Russ
Tony Bubb
Chris Weaver wrote:
>
> NoHorses wrote:
>
> > What is the most overrated route that you have ever done?
>
>
> > SOmething at Red Rocks... Crimson Chrysalis???
>
> I've gotta second that opinion. CC has got to be the worst reverse sandbag
> route I've ever been on. Maybe *maybe* a 5.7 move or two on it, and some
> guidebooks rate it 5.9.
Hmph... Triasic sands a 10?!?!? Nah, it's an 8, MAYBE a light 8+.
Mazatlan a 10? Nah, it's a light 9. Prince of Darkness a 10b/c?!?!?
Red Rocks seemed pretty light in general. Wild Turkeys was ?able at
5.9
On the other hand, Olive Oil did seem a real 5.7, and Epinepherine
had some 5.9 in sections of the chimney, so those seemed on target.
Yak Crack was a bear; 11b and I fell off of it on both tries, so
it was pretty hard, sandbagged maybe.
-T.
John Young
In article <33B041...@qntm.com>, Tony Bubb <bu...@qntm.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>On the other hand, Olive Oil did seem a real 5.7, and Epinepherine
>had some 5.9 in sections of the chimney, so those seemed on target.
>Yak Crack was a bear; 11b and I fell off of it on both tries, so
>it was pretty hard, sandbagged maybe.
>
>-T.
It's 11d in the latest Swain.
John Byrnes
NoHorses (noho...@aol.com) wrote:
> What is the most sandbagged rating that you've ever seen on a route?
I have several:
The Great White Wall in the Black Canyon. The overall rating on the
topo was "V 5.10" and each pitch was rated individually as well, except
for the 8th pitch which just has "thin" next to it. That pitch is 5.11.
Lightning Bolt Cracks, North Six Shooter, Indian Creek. The overhanging
offwidth on the first pitch is rated 5.9, but if you (stupidly) start
it left-side-in, it's 5.11-you're-looking-at-a-40-footer to turn around.
I nearly puked :-P
Lizzard The Gizzard, Cayman Brac. Lizz originally rated this 5.9+
making this route the biggest sandbag on the island until recently.
It took me 6 tries to redpoint it. The current rating is 11a and
I don't think it'll stop there. BTW: Mort bolted this route on
the lead! An amazing feat.
(This Spring Lizz bolted a bunch of new climbs. Since she was alone
she rated them just by looking at them. Quite a few ended up as
5.10c. Later two friends of ours, both 5.12 climbers, went for
the first ascents. Their ratings where, "5.10-SEE-me-hanging" and
"5.10-SEE-me-leaving-biners".) :-) :-)
- Lord Slime
Brian Killion
Steelmnkey wrote:
> No way. 5.9 is fine. Hell, the crux on that climb is only a few feet
> of climbing. Climbers nowadays want the ratings harder on climbs
> because they're runout or because they can't use their feet (a skill
> that is damn well absolutely mandatory at Josh). In days gone by,
> the ratings reflected the difficulty of routes. I say we leave them
> that
> way. I'm tired of route inflation, most of which is due to sport
> climbers
> (before you go off on me, I have no idea if NoHorses is a sportie or
> not) who go to more traditional areas and whine because they don't
> have
> totally positive holds on their climbs. The type of foot-intensive
> climbing
> that J-Tree offers just requires more skills.
I was just wondering... Aren't routes supposed to be rated by the
hardest move found on them? As an example, there is a route here in the
Black Hills that Paul Piana's guide has rated 5.10d. The crux is the
first 15 feet of the climb. However, most of the locals that write
guides rate it a 5.8 which is pretty accurate after the crux. I have
even heard someone call it a 5.6.
You could say it was a 5.8 with a tricky boulder start... but if the
tricky part were near the top of the climb, there would be no question
about what the rating is.
What do you think?
BK
--
Brian Killion: bkil...@enetis.net
-------------------------------------------------------
Steelmnkey
NoHorses <noho...@aol.com> wrote:
> What is the most sandbagged rating that you've ever seen on a route?
> it, but to me, it feels like a 5.10c. It has since been upgraded to
5.10a.
No way. 5.9 is fine. Hell, the crux on that climb is only a few feet
of climbing. Climbers nowadays want the ratings harder on climbs
because they're runout or because they can't use their feet (a skill
that is damn well absolutely mandatory at Josh). In days gone by,
the ratings reflected the difficulty of routes. I say we leave them that
way. I'm tired of route inflation, most of which is due to sport climbers
(before you go off on me, I have no idea if NoHorses is a sportie or
not) who go to more traditional areas and whine because they don't have
totally positive holds on their climbs. The type of foot-intensive
climbing
that J-Tree offers just requires more skills.
.02
G.
"Vy can't ve chust climb?" - John Salathe
Christopher Clarke
Tony Bubb <bu...@qntm.com> wrote:
>Hmph... Triasic sands a 10?!?!? Nah, it's an 8, MAYBE a light 8+.
>Mazatlan a 10? Nah, it's a light 9. Prince of Darkness a 10b/c?!?!?
>Red Rocks seemed pretty light in general. Wild Turkeys was ?able at
>5.9
>On the other hand, Olive Oil did seem a real 5.7, and Epinepherine
>had some 5.9 in sections of the chimney, so those seemed on target.
>Yak Crack was a bear; 11b and I fell off of it on both tries, so
>it was pretty hard, sandbagged maybe.
>-T.
I would agree that, in general, Red Rocks has easier grading than most
areas. But, Triassic Sands has two moves or so at the beginning of
the second pitch that qualify as 5.10 to me. Obviously, grading is
very subjective because Tony thought the Marshall's to Crack of Dawn
linkup at Seneca was the most strenuous route of its grade that he had
done. Maybe his perspective has changed since then. I believe that
the Marshall's -Dawn linkup is as easy as Triassic Sands (i.e. it has
one move that might be 5.10). Anyway, Crack of Dawn is as easy as
5.10 gets at Seneca. Yeah, who cares anyway? Both routes are
tremendous fun, well-protected and worth doing any day of the week.
-Chris
Steve Gray
Brian Killion <bkil...@enetis.net> said...
>I was just wondering... Aren't routes supposed to be rated by the
>hardest move found on them?
I'd like to know this too. Does 5.9 mean the hardest technical move is
5.9 or would a sustained collection of 5.9 moves on a route make the
route a 5.10a ?
--
Steve Gray
Remove _xxx to email me.
Mongo
Steelmnkey wrote:
>
> NoHorses <noho...@aol.com> wrote:
> > What is the most sandbagged rating that you've ever seen on a route?
> > (MY answer= Stick to What? at Joshua Tree. It was rated 5.9 when I did
> > it, but to me, it feels like a 5.10c. It has since been upgraded to
> 5.10a.
>
> No way. 5.9 is fine. Hell, the crux on that climb is only a few feet
> of climbing. Climbers nowadays want the ratings harder on climbs
> because they're runout or because they can't use their feet (a skill
> that is damn well absolutely mandatory at Josh). In days gone by,
> the ratings reflected the difficulty of routes. I say we leave them that
> way. I'm tired of route inflation, most of which is due to sport climbers
>
runouts (and associated big fall potential), I think that kind of
attitude does tend to creep up way too often nowadays. Another blatant
example of grade inflation is a route at Enchanted Rock, Texas called
"Real Gravy". It used to be rated 5.10 R/X and had four bolts in 150'
with 40' fall potential at the crux and 80' fall potential near the top
where it eases off to 5.9. I led it a couple of times back in the 80's
when I was young(er) and stupid(er). The third time I tried it, I took
a 40' whipper. I figured that was enough..... I moved away from Texas
for a few years and when I returned, "Real Gravy" is now rated 11c AND
has a couple of new bolts. What's up with that?????
Brooke Hoyer
Tony wrote:
> Red Rocks seemed pretty light in general. Wild Turkeys was ?able at 5.9
I will agree, sort of. There is one ten foot 5.10- section (bolt
protected slab) on the route which comes at the top of pitch four.
Absolutely everything else is 5.9 or easier.
> On the other hand, Olive Oil did seem a real 5.7, and Epinepherine
> had some 5.9 in sections of the chimney, so those seemed on target.
Brutus has stated that the Epi chimney would be 5.8 in Yosemite.
Considering my recent sampling (rather small) of Valley chimneys, I might
just have to agree with him.
I will admit that I suck at judging ratings though since I think
everything above 5.2 is hard ...
Brooke "It can't be that hard, it's only rated 5.7"* Hoyer
*uttered while in the 5.7 squeeze slot on East Butt of Middle Cathedral
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Brooke Hoyer
Chris Weaver opined:
> I've gotta second that opinion. CC has got to be the worst reverse sandbag
> route I've ever been on. Maybe *maybe* a 5.7 move or two on it, and some
> guidebooks rate it 5.9.
Hey Chris,
I just couldn't pass this one up ... So how does CC (since it's a 5.7)
stack up against Seneca sevens for quality?
Brooke "Giving shit and taking names" Hoyer
P.S. I apologize (really, I do, honestly, cross my fingers and hope to
die, may lightning strike me dead, swear on a stack of bibles, on my
mother's grave) for any real or perceived offensive statements my
previous posts might have contained.
Brooke Hoyer
John Young wrote (about sandbags):
> How about "Totally Tammy" at New River Gorge, originally rated
> 5.8 now 10a.
How about Rico Suave (10a) right next to it? I think it is pretty
clearly a 5.9 and Totally Tammy is a little harder than 10a.
Brooke "and I even enjoy slabby face" Hoyer
Chris Weaver
Brooke Hoyer <hoy...@mail.idt.net> wrote in article
<33B26A...@mail.idt.net>...
> John Young wrote (about sandbags):
>
> > How about "Totally Tammy" at New River Gorge, originally rated
> > 5.8 now 10a.
>
> How about Rico Suave (10a) right next to it? I think it is pretty
> clearly a 5.9 and Totally Tammy is a little harder than 10a.
An interesting side note:
Doug Cosby, the first ascensionist of Totally Tammy, had not originally
intended to bolt that line on the day that he did so. He was waiting for
someone to get off of a climb nearby. Bored, and with a Bosch in his hands,
he went over and bolted Totally Tammy. While I consider Doug a friend and a
great guy, I was never overly fond of that route - it's got a dangerous,
awkward start and uninteresting climbing higher up. Just my 2 cents.
Chris Weaver
P.S. FWIW, I think Rico Suave is probably a 10a. Maybe 9+, but it's close.
Chuck Spiekerman
Chris Weaver opined:
> I've gotta second that opinion. CC has got to be the worst reverse sandbag
> route I've ever been on. Maybe *maybe* a 5.7 move or two on it, and some
> guidebooks rate it 5.9.
Perhaps this is the "someone who doesn't understand handjams" rating.
As I remember, the most difficult (and coolest) move was pulling over
a bulge on the 4th pitch using a completely bomber handjam, looking
straight down to the base 500' below. I'd call it maybe a 5.8- move,
but perhaps harder if you couldn't jam.
Chuck
Doug Theobald
NoHorses wrote:
>
> What is the most sandbagged rating that you've ever seen on a route?
>
Boulder. Felt more like 12a/b to me. The name should have clued me in
earlier. And what about Grand Giraffe on the Red Garden Wall. Used to
be called 5.9, now 10a, and I still think it's pretty stiff, even for an
offwidth (of course my ow tech is lame).
Doug
Jeff Elison
Steve Gray (St...@wcompsys.demon.co.uk_xxx) wrote:
: Brian Killion <bkil...@enetis.net> said...
: >I was just wondering... Aren't routes supposed to be rated by the
: >hardest move found on them?
Oh no, not again!!!
: I'd like to know this too. Does 5.9 mean the hardest technical move is
: 5.9 or would a sustained collection of 5.9 moves on a route make the
: route a 5.10a ?
Yes, it would be a 5.10a or possibly even higher. Example: almost every
route at Indian Creek.
Mort
Steelmnkey
Chris Weaver opined:
> I've gotta second that opinion. CC has got to be the worst reverse
sandbag
> route I've ever been on. Maybe *maybe* a 5.7 move or two on it, and some
> guidebooks rate it 5.9.
Whaddayou been talking to Bubb??? The new guidebook downrated
the climb to 5.8+. After being on it, what the hell, I wouldn't argue too
loud with that rating.
-- Hey Chris,
--
-- I just couldn't pass this one up ... So how does CC (since it's a 5.7)
-- stack up against Seneca sevens for quality?
Well...you only get two or three pitches at Seneca (Soler, Ecstasy...)...
The quality of Crimson Chrysalis isn't even a point of contention in my
opinion. You get eight to nine pitches of really cool climbing on a very
vertical route. I'd take that over two or three pitches even though I
consider
Seneca a cool place to climb.
Shall we cut Crimson Chrysalis down some more now?? Turn it into
a total choss pile 5.4 that nobody in their right mind would do?? Fine
with me, I can go back and do it again when the crowds are gone.
Chris Weaver
Brooke Hoyer <d...@conch.aa.msen.com> wrote
> Hey Chris,
>
> I just couldn't pass this one up ... So how does CC (since it's a 5.7)
> stack up against Seneca sevens for quality?
Since you ask, it was pretty nice, but didn't give me the same sense of
oneness with the rock. Of course, let's remember that I didn't get all the
way up the thing, just over halfway. (party of 3, loss of daylight)
As for Steel Monkey's comment that he thinks CC is a better route than any
of its grade at Seneca simply because it is longer, I think he/she must be
off of his/her nut. Judging a route's quality on its length rather than its
aesthetic qualities and enjoyable climbing makes about as much sense as
tooling around town in an 18-wheeler when you could be driving a ferrari
instead.
Ciao,
Chris Weaver
Steelmnkey
Chris Weaver writes
:
-- As for Steel Monkey's comment that he thinks CC is a better route than
any
-- of its grade at Seneca simply because it is longer, I think he/she must
be
-- off of his/her nut.
Last time I checked, my nuts were in the right place.
-- Judging a route's quality on its length rather than its
-- aesthetic qualities and enjoyable climbing makes about as much sense as
-- tooling around town in an 18-wheeler when you could be driving a
ferrari
-- instead.
Thanks for passing along the blatently obvious. In the future, the
merely obvious will do.
My point was NOT that CC was a better route than Soler simply because
it was longer, only that given the quality of the two routes, I felt (and
I stated
in clear terms as I remember that it was my personal opinion) that I
though CC was a better route overall. If you're assuming that I haven't
done Soler, you're wrong. Asthetically, Soler's first pitch actually
sucks.
Wide crack/flake climbing. I even like wide cracks, but I wouldn't call
this pitch attractive. The second pitch is pretty cool, vertical, great
climbing. So basically, you want to trade one nice pitch for eight
really vertical fun, great pitches? Talk about being off your nut.
By your reasoning, you're saying a 40-foot sport route could be
considered better than the Salathe Wall on El Capitan. Apples and
oranges, my boy.
I've climbed a few routes at Seneca and lot of routes at Red Rocks. I
think
I'm somewhat qualified to compare my opinion on the general quality of
the two locations. Seneca is a great place. There are some really great
climbs, I just wouldn't say that Soler is a better route than Crimson
Chrysalis. Feel free to have another opinion, but don't haul off and
call mine stupid.
For the record, and so you know my gender and name. I'd hate to
be one of those AOLers that likes to live in a cloud of anonymity...
Greg Opland
Phoenix, Arizona
pede...@apple.com
Steve Gray wrote:
>
> Brian Killion <bkil...@enetis.net> said...
>
> >I was just wondering... Aren't routes supposed to be rated by the
> >hardest move found on them?
>
> 5.9 or would a sustained collection of 5.9 moves on a route make the
> route a 5.10a ?
>
> Steve Gray
> Remove _xxx to email me.
I thought that in theory, the Yosemite Decimal System indicated the single
hardest technical move on the route. This means that sustained or lengthy
climbs do not alter the rating. This seems to be put into practice. Take
Reed's Direct, or a number of climbs at Reed's Pinnacle area. Direct is 5.9
or 10a, but is substatially harder that many 11a one move wonders you might
encounter at a local crag, unless endurance is no problem for you whatsoever.
But in fact, there is no single move on the route that is harder than 9.
On the other hand, using YDS, you would never lower a rating because the
route had only one or two hard moves relative to the rest of the climb. A
100' 5.6 pitch with one 10a move should still be 10a. This, however, is not
always put into practice. Trads tend to lower the ratings of such climbs,
disregarding the theory of the YDS. This might in part explain why trad areas
tend to be stiffer on the ratings.
European systems can take into account the sustained nature of a climb as I
understand it, but I have no real world experience on their routes to see how
this has been put into effect.
I like YDS, as long as people realize that the rating does not always tell
you how likely you are to complete a route. And as long as people don't
downgrade climbs because they only have one hard move. R and X seem to do
fine for the runout factor, again, this should be applied consistently. As
you get down into the lower grades like 7 and 8, R and X sometimes are not
given (like the easy face routes at Echo in Josh). The lower grade routes are
probably where the warnings are most needed.
Ted
Mad Dog
Steve Gray wrote:
>Brian Killion <bkil...@enetis.net> said...
>>I was just wondering... Aren't routes supposed to be rated by the
>>hardest move found on them?
>I'd like to know this too. Does 5.9 mean the hardest technical
>move is 5.9 or would a sustained collection of 5.9 moves on a
>route make the route a 5.10a ?
You will get some debate on this. I think the old Meyers Yosemite guide
said sustained 5.(X) can be considered 5.(X+1). I could waffle either
way, depending on the route in question. For example, you can build an
overhanging gym route at a given grade with no gimmie rests. Climb up
it and rate it. Now climb up it and down it 4 times with no rests at
the bottom. Still seem like the same grade? Do another 4 laps. At
some point, that crux move will feel much harder. OTOH, if there are
sinker rests, boredom might set your lap limit. BTDT.
Mad "can'o'worms" Dog
I still can't believe he bit his fukun ear off.
Steve Gray
Mad Dog <mad...@concentric.net> said...
>You will get some debate on this. I think the old Meyers Yosemite guide
>said sustained 5.(X) can be considered 5.(X+1). I could waffle either
>way, depending on the route in question. For example, you can build an
>overhanging gym route at a given grade with no gimmie rests. Climb up
>it and rate it. Now climb up it and down it 4 times with no rests at
>the bottom. Still seem like the same grade? Do another 4 laps. At
>some point, that crux move will feel much harder. OTOH, if there are
>sinker rests, boredom might set your lap limit. BTDT.
I'm starting to like our British system - at least it's consistently
complicated ;-)
So, the answer to my question is that basically, you don't know whether
the sustained nature has been taken into account or not. In which case,
the correct response is to post a question here, sit back and watch a
flame war develop, then go and climb it and find out for yourself...
>Mad "can'o'worms" Dog
>
>I still can't believe he bit his fukun ear off.
It was a novel technique but I can't see it catching on...
michael creel
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------16C893D86DA1677676CB7DD4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Is EBGBs 5.10c in your opinion?
Steelmnkey wrote (regarding Stick to What):.
(snip)
> No way. 5.9 is fine.
(snip)
--------------16C893D86DA1677676CB7DD4
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Michael Creel
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Michael Creel
n: Creel;Michael
org: Dept. Ec. and Ec. Hist., Univ. Autonoma de Barcelona
email;internet: mcr...@volcano.uab.es
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------16C893D86DA1677676CB7DD4--
Tony Bubb
pede...@apple.com wrote:
>
> Steve Gray wrote:
> >
> > Brian Killion <bkil...@enetis.net> said...
> >
> > >I was just wondering... Aren't routes supposed to be rated by the
> > >hardest move found on them?
> >
> > I'd like to know this too. Does 5.9 mean the hardest technical move is
> > 5.9 or would a sustained collection of 5.9 moves on a route make the
> > route a 5.10a ?
Keep in mind that while you may call 100 5.8 moves in a row 5.9,
a 5.11 climber would call it 'rest.' And it's still 5.8.
-T.
Jeff Elison
Steve Gray (St...@wcompsys.demon.co.uk_xxx) wrote:
: I'm starting to like our British system - at least it's consistently
: complicated ;-)
: So, the answer to my question is that basically, you don't know whether
: the sustained nature has been taken into account or not.
In just about every area in the U.S. where I have climbed the sustained
nature IS taken into account. I think the classic examples are the
desert sandstone cracks of Indian Creek and many of the enduro overhanging
sport areas, such as Rifle.
Mort
Mark Bockmann
Tony Bubb <bu...@qntm.com.spamproof> wrote in article
<33BA59...@qntm.com.spamproof>...
> Keep in mind that while you may call 100 5.8 moves in a row 5.9,
> a 5.11 climber would call it 'rest.' And it's still 5.8.
Uhh, not necessarily. Take the crux moves of Modern Times at the Gunks, do
100 of them in a row. I don't know any 5.11 climbers that would call that a
rest.
-bock
Christopher Clarke
michael creel <mcr...@volcano.uab.es> wrote:
>Is EBGBs 5.10c in your opinion?
Michael:
In my opinion, it is. What do think?
-Chris
Alex Rast
In article <33B979...@concentric.net>, mad...@concentric.net wrote:
>Steve Gray wrote:
>
>>Brian Killion <bkil...@enetis.net> said...
>
>>>I was just wondering... Aren't routes supposed to be rated by the
>>>hardest move found on them?
>
>>I'd like to know this too. Does 5.9 mean the hardest technical
>>move is 5.9 or would a sustained collection of 5.9 moves on a
>>route make the route a 5.10a ?
>
>said sustained 5.(X) can be considered 5.(X+1). I could waffle either
>way, depending on the route in question.
I also wonder whether the difficulty of the route should take into account
quality and availability of protection. No doubt that same move that you'll do
in a flash on TR is 10 times as difficult when you're looking at an 80 foot
runout...
And I don't just mean the psychological factor makes it *seem* more difficult.
Routes with tricky pro cause you to spend far more time thinking between
moves, unless you're somewhat foolhardy. Not only do you spend more time
planning moves, you spend more time looking for placements. And the extra time
corresponds to weakening strength, which in turn leads to increased difficulty
just as in the sustained case.
So at least IMHO, a route's "grade" should take into account many more factors
than simply the technical difficulty of the hardest move. Now, you have Roman
grades, for overall length and seriousness, number grades for technical
difficulty, and possibly an aid grade. Hypothetically, you could bundle all
the factors unrelated to the hardest move into the Roman grade, but on short
or sport routes, this hardly makes sense. Moving the other direction, you
could add yet another "grade" for the ultimate difficulty of the hardest move,
imagining just for a second that it was a boulder route. But I think that adds
confusion and is of little value. On any route longer than a boulder, the move
sequences aren't perfectly clear-cut and so even the definition of which move
is the "hardest" is very fuzzy.
Bottom line: route grading will always be an art, not a science.
Alex Rast
ar...@inficom.com