Inconsistant ratings: A dangerous situation?
r...@chartist.com
Membrane. There is a climb there rated 5.9, well within the
capabilities of my climbing partner. As he got going, it was obvious
this was more difficult than a regular 5.9, but he was making progress
and was determined to complete the climb. Well just as he was getting
to the last bolt before the top anchors, he took a good fall, spun
around and scraped his head on the rock.
He's alright, if not a little psyched out.
It was then up to me, not as strong as my partner, to TR up to the last
clipped anchor to clean. I setup a rap from the anchor and came down.
But the draw sling got wedged tightly in the bolt and got stuck (it was
the first time I'd ever done this, one to learn on). We had to swallow
our pride and ask somebody to lead up and get it for us. When the guy
who got it for us got down he mentioned how tough the climb was, my
partner said it felt more like a 5.10b,c. Quite the adventure.
The real reason for this post is to pose the question: Is there any
kind of guideline to rating a climb? Does anybody come to a consensus
before giving a rating? Is it up to the guidebook's author? Since
rating a climb serves several purposes, one being safety, another
convenience, shouldn't there be some sort of certification or something
for someone to rate climbs?
I'm not being critical, mostly curious, and perhaps hoping to jog the
minds of the climbing "powers that be" whom ever they may be.
hleh...@my-dejanews.com
r...@chartist.com wrote:
<snip>
> Is there any
> kind of guideline to rating a climb? Does anybody come to a consensus
> before giving a rating? Is it up to the guidebook's author? Since
> rating a climb serves several purposes, one being safety, another
> convenience, shouldn't there be some sort of certification or something
> for someone to rate climbs?
>
> I'm not being critical, mostly curious, and perhaps hoping to jog the
> minds of the climbing "powers that be" whom ever they may be.
>
You're new around here, aren't you. There are no guidelines. There usually
isn't too much of a consensus. A climb's rating is there for neither safety
or convenience. And I fear the day that "some sort of certification" is
required for someone to rate a climb.
Guess what. Climbing is frequently a dangerous situation. If it wasn't, it
would be golf.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Brutus of Wyde
> Since
> rating a climb serves several purposes, one being safety, another
> convenience, shouldn't there be some sort of certification or something
> for someone to rate climbs?
No. Climb at your own risk.
Brutus
Dave Mac
> The real reason for this post is to pose the question: Is there any
> kind of guideline to rating a climb? Does anybody come to a consensus
> rating a climb serves several purposes, one being safety, another
> convenience, shouldn't there be some sort of certification or something
> for someone to rate climbs?
Generally, climbs get rated by the first ascensionist who says, "Well,
that felt easier than a 5.10, but harder than the 5.8 I did yesterday,
so, I'll call it 5.9." Then, someone else comes along and says, "Yeah,
it's not a 5.10, 5.9 seems about right." And ta-da, the route gets a
rating, which ends up in a guidebook.
Ratings are purely subjective, there's no way for them to be anything
else. You can measure length of the route, angle, type of rock, etc, but
difficulty is impossible to quantify. Even if you had one guy going
around to all the climbs and rating them, he'd still have his high and
low gravity days.
Ratings vary quite a bit from region to region and even crag to crag.
And you'll come across the occasional sandbag. Best thing to do is
figure out if the area's ratings run soft or hard, and adjust your
apparent limit accordingly, even if that means you're climbing 4 grades
below your "normal" limit.
The only place you'll find "certification" for route rating is in
climbing gyms, and those people are called routesetters.
-Dave
--
editor (at) climber.net
Visit Climber.Net online!
http://www.climber.net
An electronic magazine for rock, ice and alpine climbers
travis bickle
Is there any
> kind of guideline to rating a climb? Does anybody come to a consensus
> before giving a rating?
My advice would be to talk to people at the crag. The locals will tell
you which routes are sandbagged or not. There was a time when 5.9 was the
hardest climb in the world. Maybe that was an old route you were on. Talk
to people and educate yourself, that is of more value than a guide book
anyway.
Is it up to the guidebook's author? Since
> rating a climb serves several purposes, one being safety, another
> convenience, shouldn't there be some sort of certification or something
> for someone to rate climbs?
If I were you I'd put on that flameproof jacket because the comment about
the rating being for safety might draw some fire and the one about
certification might be worse. I dunno but I'd duck.
djm
Mad Dog
>Ratings are purely subjective, there's no way for them to be
>anything else. You can measure length of the route, angle,
>type of rock, etc, but difficulty is impossible to quantify.
Don't bet the farm on it. Never say "impossible". Given an adequate
budget, skilled biophysicists could get very close to quantifying
ratings. However, one would need to input many data points before the
program could produce a final grade, such as:
Height
Weight
Ape Index
Location of center of gravity
Finger strength
Various endurance measurables
Tenacity qoutient
Phase of the moon
Length of penis*
Flexibility measurements
Etc.
Phase of moon/biorhythm phase
Ability to slime up squeeze chimneys
Ability to pose
Ability to jam
Etc.
Diameter of anus during full-bore garlic/sourkraut/sausage flatch
Distance above last piece of pro
Distance in time since last donut
Blood alcohol content
Ad infinitum
Mad "everything can be measured and modeled" Dog
*: applies to trad and aid routes only and is detrimental on sport
Kelly Rich
[snip of sandbag description]
> The real reason for this post is to pose the question: Is there any
> kind of guideline to rating a climb? Does anybody come to a consensus
> before giving a rating? Is it up to the guidebook's author? Since
> rating a climb serves several purposes, one being safety, another
> convenience, shouldn't there be some sort of certification or something
> for someone to rate climbs?
>
Normally, it is the FA team who determines the rating of a climb. This
rating usually sticks unless there is a huge cry for it to be changed. This
is one good reason for FA information in the back of guide books (Randy,
you listening?), you can get to know how certain folks tend to rate their
climbs.
Ratings are very subjective, and should only serve as a general idea as
to the difficulty of a climb. I know that at Lover's Leap, there's a climb
that some folks feel is easy 5.9 while shorter people swear it's .10c. What
rating do you give this in the book--"5.9 - 5.10c, depending on height."
OK, I'm 5'8", it should be around 5.9c or 5.9d for me...
Also, when a person does a first, the climb may seem easier than it
actually is--it's not uncommon that a person is climbing at their very best
when doing first ascents and therefore they unintentionally sandbag the
rating. Also, some folks think it's cool to sandbag the rating--"hey, it
only feels like 5.9 to me, you must new."
In the end, there could be a number of reasons why the climb felt harder
than 5.9:
* It was and was sandbagged on purpose
* It wasn't and you missed a hold
* It wasn't, until a hold broke
* It was because you're too short to reach the good hold
* It wasn't because you didn't see the bomber hold
* It was, and you should have seen that from the ground
* It was. Didn't you know that anything rated 5.9 here is at least 5.11?
and on and on and on.
Reminds me of a route we just did in Yosemite. My partner said it looked
cool and the .10a rating would be a good one for the end of the day. In the
back of my mind I was thinking the thing looked like hard .10+ at the very
least. My friend ended up aiding through the crux. I barely managed to free
the line on TR--fist jams and heel-hooks in the undercling got me through
the section where there were no feet on an overhanging ball-berring wall.
Afterwards, I swore that the climb was .11a at the very least (I could name
several .11b's and c's that were way easier for me). My friend couldn't
believe that someone whould actually allow such a sandbag into the guide. I
asked how could he look at that thing and think it was only .10a?
What can you do about it? Not much other than stay in the gym where you can
complain to the routesetter.
:- k
Climber938
little ways away). I admit that ratings seem inconsistant (try going to City
Of Rocks...easy) but that's why I pick climbs that either my partner or I feel
are well within our abilities. Anyway-just thought I'd say somethin'...
Matt Long
Steelmnkey
>
>On Saturday, we went climbing up American Fork to a place called the
>Membrane. There is a climb there rated 5.9, well within the
>capabilities of my climbing partner.
> When the guy
>who got it for us got down he mentioned how tough the climb was, my
>partner said it felt more like a 5.10b,c. Quite the adventure.
So 5.9 is well within the capabilities of your partner, but
5.10b isn't still dogable? Not criticizing your partner, just don't
see how 5.9 could be so easy and 10b/c so out of bounds.
In the book, I see two 5.10a's on The Membrane.
Bad Faith (10a) and Caress of Steel (10a). Was the route
one of these? Both of them basically say 'jug haul'
>The real reason for this post is to pose the question:
> Is there any kind of guideline to rating a climb?
Yup. The FA party does the climb. Gives it a rating. A few
other parties do the route and eventually it kind of settles out.
This is how it used to happen, when areas were developed
over the course of many years. Now, complete sport areas
are "installed" in the course of a year or two, so you can expect
the ratings to be somewhat suspect for a while. There also seems
to be this thing where ratings in some sport areas are lowered
to sandbag potential because the locals use a route for warm up
and eventually have it so dialed, the downgrade it because "it
can't be 10b!" when it's soooo easy.
> Does anybody come to a consensus before giving a rating?
Ratings are subjective, no matter what "concensus" you think
you have. You can't measure a route's difficulty on a meter.
If you've been climbing long enough, you develop a little
thing called JUDGEMENT and have to rely on that to keep
you safe.
> Is it up to the guidebook's author?
No, although it is within the guidebook author's perogative
to bump ratings up and down depending on the local "concensus."
Still subjective in nature.
> Since rating a climb serves several purposes, one being safety,
> another convenience, shouldn't there be some sort of certification
> or something for someone to rate climbs?
You have to be kidding.
There is nothing related to "safety" about the ratings of a route.
Ratings are only a subjective estimate of the route's difficulty.
The guidebook is not responsible if you jump on a route and
get hurt, no matter what the rating. Climbers like you should
learn that they, and only they, are responsible for their own
safety. I don't know where you learned to climb, but you got
ripped off if you didn't learn that.
I'm guessing you're self-taught or learned in a gym??
You should go learn from a REAL(tm) climber while
you're still on one piece.
>I'm not being critical, mostly curious, and perhaps hoping to jog the
>minds of the climbing "powers that be" whom ever they may be.
I'm also not being critical here, but you have a TON
left to learn about REAL climbing!!! Get help before you
hurt yourself seriously.
G.
p.s. Note that I didn't say "trad" or "sport" in any comments here.
Either way, you can end up just as dead, so the type of climbing
is WAY not an issue.
RKVOGEL
>Is there any
>kind of guideline to rating a climb? Does anybody come to a consensus
>before giving a rating? Is it up to the guidebook's author? Since
>rating a climb serves several purposes, one being safety, another
>convenience, shouldn't there be some sort of certification or something
>for someone to rate climbs?
>
Ratings are opinions and only that. When they are the opinions of a concensus
of climbers, they become a bit less subjective, but subjective nevertheless.
Mis-rated routes have many causes (and effects). A few examples come to mind:
(1) A hold may break off rendering the original rating incorrect;
(2) Suzy/Bob (the first ascent party) was having a good day/was feeling
particularly strong, or the route was five grades too easy or hard for them.
(3) Climbs in this area may be over-rated or under-rated compared where you are
from...
(4) You are having a bad day...
(5) etc. [I'm sure someone in this newsgroup will post a real comprehensive
list]
This ain't rocket science, nor is it intended to be so. Sounds like the route
was well protected so you need to expect that type of thing whilst climbing and
get over it. Pull that pen out and change the rating.
A guide book author does the best he/she can to compile ratings from the people
who either put the route up and/or others who have climbed it. If the area is
not huge, and the author energetic, they may actually climb most the routes
too. It still comes back to someone's opinion, and if you ever read this
newsgroup, boy do opinions vary.
Speaking of certification, were you certified to climb that route????
Randy
Onroute
gunks I consistantly climb hard tens, trad. On a recent trip to Red Rocks,
Nevada I got on an 11b as my first climb of the trip (sport). Onsight flash
(no beta). The rest of the time there I was climbing 11 and 12. (12a).
In the Cascades of the Pacific North West some of the alpine 7s seem like nines
(exposure factor).
Go down to Seneca rocks in West Virginia and the stuff is tuff! at all
grades.
The Gunks seems to have the stiffest ratings that I have encountered. I think
that there is definatly differences from crag to crag.
In my humble opinion I think that one of the reasons is that people mostly
climb at their local crags, compare climbs to others in the area and that is
what the rating is based on.
Now lets compare Gym ratings! (haha)
Adam
tims...@io.com
hleh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Guess what. Climbing is frequently a dangerous situation. If it wasn't, it
> would be golf.
SWEET JESUS! Please don't mention golf again. I hear you can get eaten by
crocodiles playing golf. Taylor sent me a horrible story about that with a
disgusting photo of a dead dude in Florida. Yuck!
-Tim
TradClmbr
for YOUR safety. What ever happened to judgement and self-responsibility. If
the climb's too hard, back off! If you go for it, then deal with the
consequences. Don't blame YOUR problem on a rating YOU feel is inappropriate.
Adam S. Toline
Steelmnkey wrote in message
<199807210052...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>r...@chartist.com
>>
>>On Saturday, we went climbing up American Fork to a place called the
>>Membrane. There is a climb there rated 5.9, well within the
>>capabilities of my climbing partner.
>>...snip...
>> When the guy
>>who got it for us got down he mentioned how tough the climb was, my
>>partner said it felt more like a 5.10b,c. Quite the adventure.
>
>So 5.9 is well within the capabilities of your partner, but
>5.10b isn't still dogable? Not criticizing your partner, just don't
>see how 5.9 could be so easy and 10b/c so out of bounds.
>
>In the book, I see two 5.10a's on The Membrane.
>Bad Faith (10a) and Caress of Steel (10a). Was the route
>one of these? Both of them basically say 'jug haul'
Ah so, now I think I see what is going on here. I visited AF once about
2 years ago and climbed at that spot. I distinctly remember getting on
Caress of Steel and having a tough time midway, even though 10a was way
within my ability. I think I had gotten off route into some nether region
between the two routes.
Remember, even if all grades were right on, they only apply if you do
the route exactly right.
James Neal Singletary
>> kind of guideline to rating a climb? Does anybody come to a consensus
>> before giving a rating?
nospam...@ethergate.com (travis bickle) wrote:
> My advice would be to talk to people at the crag. The locals will tell
>you which routes are sandbagged or not. There was a time when 5.9 was the
>hardest climb in the world.
> [SNIP!]
As an aside, I don't think there was a time when 5.9 was the hardest
climb in the world. When that difficulty was the frontier of climbing,
the standard was being set in other countries, naturally using other
scales. Routes of comparable difficulty were established, ground-up, in
at least Germany and the modern-day Czech Republic at about the time
that carabiners were first used, several years before WWI. I apologize
for being picky, and agree with the rest of your post, but maybe we
Americans should be a little more conscientiously humble.
With regards,
James Singletary
--
______________________________________________________________________
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
______________________________________________________________________
James Singletary \\ NCSU College of Textiles \\ 2401 Research Drive \\
Raleigh NC 27695 \\ USA \\ office # (919) 515 4399 \\ (!)
bho...@my-dejanews.com
> > Is there any kind of guideline to rating a climb?
>
> Yup. The FA party does the climb. Gives it a rating. A few
> other parties do the route and eventually it kind of settles out.
>
> > Does anybody come to a consensus before giving a rating?
>
> Ratings are subjective, no matter what "concensus" you think
> you have.
>
> > Is it up to the guidebook's author?
>
> No, although it is within the guidebook author's perogative
> to bump ratings up and down depending on the local "concensus."
Late last Fall, I had an e-mail exchange with Porter Jarrard concerning the
grades he gave some of the climbs he included in his Red River Gorge Select
guidebook since they differed somewhat from the Bronaugh guide. One of the
climbs he did not change the rating of was Jungle Beat, 5.9. Most people who
tackle this fun adventure will agree that the crux is certainly harder than
5.9. When I asked about that, Porter responded, "Hey, that route is the
classic sandbag. How could I change it?" You know, I had to agree.
This topic has come up before, but 5.9 is THE sandbag rating.
Brooke "Sandbags make good stories" Hoyer
Taylor Shull
Then I'll be all like... (in the voice of Kyle from Southpark)
"God damn that's a cool climb"
And do it. if I fall, so be it. But I'll look up the rating later.
rbm...@physics.physics.ubc.ca
|> Reminds me of a route we just did in Yosemite. My partner said it looked
|> cool and the .10a rating would be a good one for the end of the day. In the
|> back of my mind I was thinking the thing looked like hard .10+ at the very
|> least. My friend ended up aiding through the crux. I barely managed to free
|> the line on TR--fist jams and heel-hooks in the undercling got me through
|> the section where there were no feet on an overhanging ball-berring wall.
|> Afterwards, I swore that the climb was .11a at the very least (I could name
|> several .11b's and c's that were way easier for me). My friend couldn't
|> believe that someone whould actually allow such a sandbag into the guide. I
|> asked how could he look at that thing and think it was only .10a?
C'mon -- you're not going to keep us all guessing are you? *WHAT WAS THE
ROUTE?????*
rbmack
Darwin O.V. Alonso
This is a good point. Really, I think one of the skills of climbing
(leading actually), just like tying knots and being able to pull-down,
is judging a climbs difficulties and desirability. It's part of route
finding, and it's part of the fun of it. Some of my funnest recent
climbing experiences come after seeing a route not in the book,
convincing myself "I can do that.", and trying it.
Not to slag off the original poster!
Darwin
Brutus of Wyde
> why some ratings may sometimes seem odd to some...
> (1) A hold may break off rendering the original rating incorrect;
> (2) Suzy/Bob (the first ascent party) was having a good day/was feeling
> particularly strong, or the route was five grades too easy or hard for them.
> (3) Climbs in this area may be over-rated or under-rated compared where you are
> from...
> (4) You are having a bad day...
> (5) etc. [I'm sure someone in this newsgroup will post a real comprehensive
> list]
Brutus, chewing his cud, ruminates on the porch of the
Old Climbers' Home, spits toward the spitoon in the corner,
then shuffles off into his room, returning an hour later
with a fist full of soiled, wrinkled papers from writings
of long ago...
Well, I've got a few notes written down here...
Reasons for seemingly mis-rated routes:
1. The route has changed since it was rated.
2. You have changed since the route was rated.
3. Ratings have changed since the route was rated.
4. Equipment has changed since the route was rated.
5. Climbing styles, techniques, preferences, and
popularity have changed since the route was rated.
6. The universe has changed since the route was rated
7. The route was originally mis-rated
8. The first ascentionist had poor self-esteem
9. The first ascentionist had delusions of grandeur
10. The first ascentionist had a huge ego, coupled
with a twisted sense of humor and a large dose of
false humility, and fists 12" in diameter.
11. The first ascentionist was off-route.
12. You were off route.
13. The guidebook was off-route.
14. East Coast climbs are harder for a given rating.
15. West Coast Climbs are harder for a given rating,
except in Black Velvet Canyon, Red Rocks, Nevada,
which we shouldn't use as an example since it isn't on the
coast anyways, and on Cloud Tower, but no one really
believes that Toni Bbub soloed Chrimson Chrysalis
round trip from the Visitors' Center in 23.584 seconds
so that doesn't really count either
16. The route is located in the California High Sierra,
and was rated 4th Class 50 years ago
17. The route is located in the Bernese Oberland, and
was rated 4th class 90 years ago
18. The route was first ascended by John Bachar, who
(as he later confessed) at the time had
no clue as to what grade inflation was taking place
in the world outside his own first ascents.
19. The route is an Offwidth.
20. The route is not an Offwidth.
21. YES, THE ROUTE IS A D*MN OFFWIDTH!!!
22. Bullsh*t. If you say that, you're not a Real
Climber (TM). If you'd shed a few pounds, you would
see that the route is obviously a squeeze chimney.
Stupid IDIOT!
23. Oh. Well, I laybacked it. Seemed casual 5.7, not 5.12
24. The route actually needs 3 ratings, and the rating
system does not take this into account:
4th, 5.7x, 5.12f [Guidebook shows route as
4th class, climbed in 1950 by Koontz and Hayes in
work boots... Modern guidebook would place the difficulty
at 5.7 x because there is no place to protect, hence
the original 4th class rating, but there is one section
that is 5.12 if you have the wingspan of a finch.]
25. The first ascent party climbed the route in mountaineering
boots with tricouni nails, an alpenstock, and 60 pound packs.
26. In winter.
27. During a drought.
28. With helecopter support, for a movie about Hugo Hardcore
and the Master Monk.
29. The route has not yet been climbed.
30. Coffee.
31. No coffee.
32. The route was first climbed by Tobin Sorenson and Gib Lewis.
33. The route was not first climbed, today, by r...@chartist.com,
and hence was rated differently than what rob and his partner
would rate it.
34. The rating is based on an intricate sequence worked out
by Chris "Speedy" Gonzales of RMRU on top rope over many
months, and if you place pro in the only viable location,
you've just clogged up a crucial jam. Shoulda soloed it.
35. John Bachar worked out the sequence on a top rope prior
to leading the climb, something the guidebook failed to
mention, and they left out the R/X rating too
36. The route description, rating, and topo have the following
text etched in the lower right hand corner, visible only
with electron micrograph when held over an unlit candle under
a full moon on the 6th of July. [All routes have this
disclaimer, by the way. If you don't believe me, get your
own scanning electron microscope and check it out
for yourself!]
"Summary and Disclaimer:
This rating, this description, and this topo, are based
on dim recollections, misguided conscenses,
half-baked guesses, and outright lies, and in NO WAY do
they even ATTEMPT to tell the full story. Loose rock, weather,
and excessive consumption of alcohol are among countless
factors that will KILL you when attempting this route. If you
can't take responsibility for your own safety, for your
own decisions and knowledge, if you can't climb at your own
risk, if you or your survivors are the kind who would try
to sue the author of a topo or a guidebook, PLEASE stay
far far away from this route, give up climbing, and die of
some completely natural, painful, slowly progressive disease.
Thank you."
Hope this helps clarify things...
Kelly Rich
rbm...@physics.physics.ubc.ca wrote in article
<6p2dl9$8eb$1...@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>...
> In article <01bdb433$8c9db740$e65eba9b@rich_kelly>, "Kelly Rich"
<kelly...@tandem.com> writes:
>> Reminds me of a route we just did in Yosemite.<cutter-roo>
> C'mon -- you're not going to keep us all guessing are you? *WHAT WAS THE
> ROUTE?????*
> rbmack
Static Cling.
:- k
travis bickle
(James Neal Singletary) wrote:
I apologize
> for being picky, and agree with the rest of your post, but maybe we
> Americans should be a little more conscientiously humble.
>
>
> With regards,
> James Singletary
I guess what I meant to say was that the rating system topped out at 5.9.
So, from the viewpoint of the Yosemite Decimal System, the hardest climb
done would have had a 5.9 rating. Granted, at any one moment the hardest
climb done may not have been in the States. I've met some of the old
school climbers(for me that means early 60's) here in Oregon and they've
told me that some routes in the mountains got a 5.8 rating because they
knew that 5.9 was the top in Yosemite and there was no way they could
climb as well as the Yosemite climbers so their climb must have been only
5.8. Needless to say those climbs are not 5.8.
5.9, scarier than 5.10.
djm
Steelmnkey
>
> One of the climbs he did not change the rating of was
> Jungle Beat, 5.9. Most people who tackle this fun adventure
> will agree that the crux is certainly harder than 5.9. When I
> asked about that, Porter responded, "Hey, that route is the
>classic sandbag. How could I change it?" You know, I had to agree.
>
>This topic has come up before, but 5.9 is THE sandbag rating.
Ok, I'll admit to doing the same thing in my guide for a 5.7
that probably feels something like 5.9 to a climber who isn't
familiar with the Phx rating scale (stiff) and also isn't much of
a crack climber. Who am I to dilute such a classic experience.
G.
Steelmnkey
past couple of years leap to mind...whether or not Triple-S
at Seneca Rocks is a 5.8 and whether or not Double Cross
at Joshua Tree is a 5.7+. I've climbed both of these and don't
think either one is a sandbag at the given ratings. Then again,
I am quite familiar with crack climbing (granite and otherwise)
and setting protection, so for me, the climbs feel about right
for the ratings. Someone who is just starting out placing gear,
is not familiar with the type of rock and feels these should be
well within their abilities (climbing 5.10 in the gym) might figure
the climbs are sandbagged because the climbs scared the shit
out of them and "felt hard." Just two differenct perspectives.
Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about the exactness of
ratings and just used them as a ballpark estimate, the way
God intended.
G. "5.7+ used to be fun before I crashed" O.
Steelmnkey
>
>Ben climbing for some time now, mostly in the north and south east.
> At the gunks I consistantly climb hard tens, trad. On a recent trip to
> Red Rocks, Nevada I got on an 11b as my first climb of the trip (sport)
Apples...meet oranges. Are you honestly going to try to compare
Gunks trad with Red Rocks sport climbs? How come you didn't
just run up and climb Leavitation 29??
> The rest of the time there I was climbing 11
> and 12. (12a).
Sport, I assume.
Sic 'em Slime!!
G.
bho...@my-dejanews.com
> Two "discussions" we've had on this newsgroup over the
> past couple of years leap to mind...whether or not Triple-S
> at Seneca Rocks is a 5.8 and whether or not Double Cross
> at Joshua Tree is a 5.7+.
> G. "5.7+ used to be fun before I crashed" O.
Triple-S is not 5.8, it is 5.8+.
Brooke "The plus will get you every time" Hoyer
Ilana Stern
> Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about the exactness of
> ratings and just used them as a ballpark estimate, the way
> God intended.
The guidebook rating is just one part of the overall
picture. Certain routes are acknowledged sandbags, some
are "easy for the grade", some are moderate with a touch
of impossibility, and the only way you know which of these
a given 5.x route corresponds to is by listening to the
local buzz.
That's one of the values of this newsgroup. Like when
I wanted to lead my first 5.9, and asked for suggestions.
That's how I knew that Classic Finger Crack would be
perfect, and George's Tree would be a mistake, even though
they're both 5.9. Now I've climbed both, and I would
not change the rating on either, but I'd certainly tell
someone else asking about either route that the first is
a comfy sew-uppable finger crack and the second is a
scary slippery flared handcrack.
Most climbers in Boulder know that Cozyhang is an easy
route with two extremely difficult spots for 5.7, that the
novice 5.8 leader ought not attempt the Petit Grepon, that
east face flatiron climbs tend to be poorly protected.
This is local knowledge, and what you'll get when you
ask about these climbs on the net. (Provided you've shown
at least a little bit of initiative by checking out a
guidebook first for the basics!)
John Byrnes
> George's Tree ... is a
> scary slippery flared handcrack.
:-) George's is *the* final exam for 5.9 handcrack
technique. I've never seen anything anywhere that
compares.
- Lord Slime, "Fritz! What happened to your hands?!"
MadBolter
> Triple-S is not 5.8, it is 5.8+.
>
> Brooke "The plus will get you every time" Hoyer
Reminds me of an article I read some time back about John
Middendorf which said that when he rates (aid) climbs as
A-whatever-"+", watch out! He's usually sandbagging.
Is this true John? You lurking out there?
-Rex Pieper
travis bickle
steel...@aol.com (Steelmnkey) wrote:
> >onr...@aol.com (Onroute) wrote:
> >
> >Ben climbing for some time now, mostly in the north and south east.
> > At the gunks I consistantly climb hard tens, trad. On a recent trip to
> > Red Rocks, Nevada I got on an 11b as my first climb of the trip (sport)
> > Onsight flash (no beta).
>
> Apples...meet oranges. Are you honestly going to try to compare
> Gunks trad with Red Rocks sport climbs? How come you didn't
> just run up and climb Leavitation 29??
Or head up and do some of the "moderate" 9's and 10' on the "Brass Balls
Wall." There kind of like sport routes in that you don't need to bring a
rack since there isn't any pro!
djm
Steelmnkey
>Triple-S is not 5.8, it is 5.8+.
>
>Brooke "The plus will get you every time" Hoyer
Re: Climber's Guide to North America, East Coast Rock Climbs
by John Harlin III, (c) 1986 says Triple-S (5.8)
Also says "Supreme Classic" Great description.
Re: Bill Webster guide, (c) 1990 says Triple-S (5.8)
Re: Tony Barnes update, (c) 1995 says Triple-S (5.8+)
I did the route in 1993 and 1994, so it was 5.8 when I did it.
It's gotten harder now.
G.
Greg Opland
Phoenix, Arizona
Onroute
>Gunks trad with Red Rocks sport climbs? How come you didn't
>just run up and climb Leavitation 29??
Here is the truth of the matter for me:
Fifteen years climbing, the Red Rocks trip was my first sport climbing venture.
I never had a real interest in the sport thing until my younger brother in
law talked me into it. Must say I had a good time and came back with an
inflated climbing ego. I climbed at the first and second pullout areas (Daed
Dog Wall, Fixx cliff, Gallery.. and spent a full day at Sunny and Steep. I cant
say that the moves on any of these climbs felt like their ratings said that
they were. I do say that Sunny and Steep has some awsome steep climbing! The
hike to the area was great. On another note I was there the week before Easter
and we got snowed out on one day so we went to the Dessert Rocks climbing gym
and the gym ratings were similar to their outdoor ratings. I know this is a
whole other topic, the consistancy of gym ratings!
Adam
Magnus Homann
> I guess what I meant to say was that the rating system topped out at 5.9.
> So, from the viewpoint of the Yosemite Decimal System, the hardest climb
> done would have had a 5.9 rating. Granted, at any one moment the hardest
> climb done may not have been in the States.
Just out of curiosity...
When exactly was he hardest route in the world in the US anyway? Any
suggestions?
Homann
--
Magnus Homann Email: d0a...@dtek.chalmers.se
URL : http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/DCIG/d0asta.html
The Climbing Archive!: http://www.dtek.chalmers.se/Climbing/index.html
Karl J
> > for someone to rate climbs?
> > minds of the climbing "powers that be" whom ever they may be.
> isn't too much of a consensus. A climb's rating is there for neither safety
> or convenience. And I fear the day that "some sort of certification" is
> required for someone to rate a climb.
I think we all should be.
> Guess what. Climbing is frequently a dangerous situation. If it wasn't, it
> would be golf.
Although I think golf is not the best example here. How many heart
attacks, burst blood vessells have old men had after quadruple bogeying a
hole. No big deal in
itself, but with the amount of large business deals taking place on the
links, and the large amounts of money involved. oh well, now I've typed
too much.
-- And so castles made of sand / melt / into the sea.
Karl J
> And you'll come across the occasional sandbag. Best thing to do is
> figure out if the area's ratings run soft or hard, and adjust your
> apparent limit accordingly, even if that means you're climbing 4 grades
> below your "normal" limit.
unless you're climbing at girraween in Queensland Australia, where scott
camps was climbing 29-32ish before that sort of grade was accepted as
being an allowable level fo difficulty.
hence the rather high number of outrageously hard, ludicriously runout
granite slab 24's in the area.
At girraween I take of about 8-9 grades.
atg...@is5.nyu.edu
>
> When exactly was he hardest route in the world in the US anyway? Any
> suggestions?
>
> Homann
Pretty much always before the 80s. The Phoenix 13a in Yosemite for sure, and
probably others afterwards. Could be wrong though.
Andrew
Adam S. Toline
atg...@is5.nyu.edu wrote in message <6pirat$i7q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Yes, you are wrong. In 1978 Lake Tahoe's own "Grand Illusion" checked
in at a hefty 5.13c, although the route's FA (Tony Yaniro) declined to grade
it as such. This sick roof crack saw a handful of repeats shortly
afterwards, but sadly is now pretty much unclimbable due to it's use as a
bathroom for wayward bats.
Drew Bedford
just leave a bail biner.