The crux is equivalent to doing a v4 boulder problem (~5.12)...

interesting question. the term "boulder problem" is now often applied in lieu of "crux" or "crux sequence" to define the hardest sections of moves on a route. definitely shows the increasing influence bouldering is having as a training method that's helping push the standards of difficulty for routes.

i remember hearing/reading that a routes rating is typically the rating of the crux move. if a route is very sustained its rating might be increased a bit to reflect that. before bouldering got insanely popular this was standard.

whats the difference between a gaston 100' up v.s. 1' up

Nope. Routes have always been rated for cumulative difficulty, not how hard the hardest move is.

Very poorly. 100' of v1 would be at least 5.12+. Usually, 12a's have v1 cruxes, 12c's v3, 13a's v5, etc. To Bolt or Not To Be, a 14a at Smith Rock, has no moves harder than v3.

not trying to start a war, but that method does stick out in my memory. perhaps coming from reading about the YDS pre 5.10 in either the gunks or seneca, but i could be misinformed again.

i will concede that today most routes are rated on cumulative difficulty

There IS no consensus, never has been. Ratings are idosyncratic to specific climbs, climbers and areas. You can find a one move wonder next to an enduro route both with the same rating.

not trying to start a war, but that method does stick out in my memory. perhaps coming from reading about the YDS pre 5.10 in either the gunks or seneca, but i could be misinformed again.

i will concede that today most routes are rated on cumulative difficulty

no, but I know 4 people who have, and they all said the same thing - it's 120' of v3. not too hard to believe when you realize that most hard routes are mostly easy individual moves with some cruxes thrown in.

i'm not buying it, but honestly i don't care that much. i just think it's a slap in the face to the people who have actually sent it.

this was also mentioned once on another website(smithrock.com) and was shot down by ian caldwell who had just sent it. there is simply harder moves than that on it.

would you be willing to name these people that told you "the hardest move was v3" on one of the most famous climbs in the country, and certainly one of the most striking lines at smith?

this was also mentioned once on another website(smithrock.com) and was shot down by ian caldwell who had just sent it. there is simply harder moves than that on it.

would you be willing to name these people that told you "the hardest move was v3" on one of the most famous climbs in the country, and certainly one of the most striking lines at smith?

Very poorly. 100' of v1 would be at least 5.12+.

would you be willing to name these people that told you "the hardest move was v3" on one of the most famous climbs in the country, and certainly one of the most striking lines at smith?

It's funny how time and time again boulderers assume climbs are harder than they really are because, since they're flailing, they think the moves must be at the upper end of their personal range, when in fact, the moves are dead easy - they just don't really know how to climb.

'Grok' wow, Stranger in a Strange Land reference.

ps. v4 does not equal 5.12 in my book. 5.12 is much more difficult than simply sending v4.

*Nah, the kind of climbing you do is just like hiking up Everest. You might indeed flail and you might even die, but there's no real technical difficulty to it.*

We're in agreement. Climbing doesn't get hard till about mid 13. That's when all the training and practice climbing on boulders starts to actually apply to real climbing. Below 13 b/c you're barely getting into v4 or 5.

Kauk, Moffat, Engelkirk and Hill. Moffat told Kauk it was "120' of 12a cruxes", for which v3 is actually being generous, and Kauk told me. Engelkirk and Hill both did it in a couple days, and said there were no hard moves. McClure did To Bolt 2nd try after getting way the hell up there onsight.

It's funny how time and time again boulderers assume climbs are harder than they really are because, since they're flailing, they think the moves must be at the upper end of their personal range, when in fact, the moves are dead easy - they just don't really know how to climb.

It's funny how time and time again boulderers assume climbs are harder than they really are because, since they're flailing, they think the moves must be at the upper end of their personal range, when in fact, the moves are dead easy - they just don't really know how to climb.

Usually, 12a's have v1 cruxes, 12c's v3, 13a's v5, etc.

...comments like this become closed minded and essentially ignorant. People that view bouldering as "training and practice" for routes irk me to no end. Point me toward your project sir and I'll show you how I can't climb!

Unless you're real devoted, he's probably outclimbed you by a ton.

I know through personal experience from the other side that what he's saying is exactly true. I bouldered exclusively for the first three years I climbed, and I got pretty strong, routinely flashing V3 at most areas and climbing 4s and 5s. However, put me on a rope, and I'd flail pathetically on 5.11 past the first eight or nine moves. My movement was (still is, plus grad school is making me weak and out of shape) inefficient, and sequences that would have been trivial near the ground presented serious problems for me.

...I know through personal experience from the other side that what he's saying is exactly true. I bouldered exclusively for the first three years I climbed, and I got pretty strong, routinely flashing V3 at most areas and climbing 4s and 5s. However, put me on a rope, and I'd flail pathetically on 5.11 past the first eight or nine moves. My movement was (still is, plus grad school is making me weak and out of shape) inefficient, and sequences that would have been trivial near the ground presented serious problems for me.

Without turning this into a pissing match of who can climb harder, you totally missed the point of the post. The fact that you failed on 5.11, while being able to flash V3 shows me that your training was flawed (and I mean no offense to you). The point of my post was that at the higher boulder grades (V10 and up consistently) it takes more than just power and luck to get up. Good technique, body awareness, and power are all skills gained through bouldering. kalcario obviously has a personal problem with people who boulder. Please don't get me wrong, I boulder almost exclusively and still love to do routes-I just love bouldering more. IMO the real meat of bouldering doesn't even begin until you get into the double digits. That is the difference in the two climbing types for me. I'd much rather do several super hard technically demanding moves than 20 V1's stacked one atop the other.

However, that is merely your own personal experience. I have bouldered with people (some from this site) who onsight hard 5.12 sport climbs all the time--but they can't do a V2/V3 boulder problem without a huge amount of effort and many tries.

So, it works the other way around too.

Curt

This shows that there is a good deal of individual vairation in how the V scale is understood and applied. Many folks consider V1 to be about equal to the crux of a solid 5.10, as an example. If I recall correctly, Verm used this comparison early on, to define the V scale didn't he?

Anyway. In my experience and understanding 12a's of the slightly-overhanging-30 - 50-foot-sport-route type often have cruxes harder than V1.

...Take both the boulderer and the 12+ onsighter out on the 200' of medium-difficulty warm up terrain that the 12+ guy warms up on, then take them both back to the boulders, *then* see who's struggling on v2/3. The boulderer will be wasted and need 2 or 3 rest days, whereas your 12+ onsighter will just be getting started.

Has someone who does not rope up ever won the Phoenix Bouldering Comp? Wills Young comes to mind, anyone else?

* I have bouldered with people (some from this site) who onsight hard 5.12 sport climbs all the time--but they can't do a V2/V3 boulder problem without a huge amount of effort and many tries.*

That's because your 12+ onsighter needs a few hundred feet of sustained medium-difficulty climbing, a number grade or so below their onsight threshold, that delivers a pretty vigorous pump, and time to recover from that warm-up pump, before they are operating at the best of their ability - and bouldering simply will not get that guy pumped, or even warmed up, because he's not on the rock long enough. Take both the boulderer and the 12+ onsighter out on the 200' of medium-difficulty warm up terrain that the 12+ guy warms up on, then take them both back to the boulders, *then* see who's struggling on v2/3. The boulderer will be wasted and need 2 or 3 rest days, whereas your 12+ onsighter will just be getting started.

My point (which belabors the obvious I admit) is that doing strength tricks on boulders is awesome training for sport climbing, but only insofar as you don't pursue strength as an end in itself. There's more to being a NFL wide receiver than doing 40 yard sprints, or to golf than putting, or to tennis than a 120 mph serve, etc. Dave Graham has a great little article in the latest R&I about how he used bouldering as a training tool for his 15a Coup de Grace in Switzerland. He's a better boulderer because he climbs, and he's a better climber because he boulders - the fact that sport climbers win the bouldering comps more than half the time bears this out. Has someone who does not rope up ever won the Phoenix Bouldering Comp? Wills Young comes to mind, anyone else?