|
wyattearp
Nov 12, 2003, 7:37 AM
Post #1 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2003
Posts: 365
|
What are some peoples views about the recent Claim of 5.15c a full 2 grades harder then Relization and a grade harder then Fred roughling's Akira with manufactured holds. Where will this spor go hiow far will ratings go? Mutant kids seem to pop up everywhere including Daniel woods the 14 year old pulling 14's! I mean I have developed some spots and a few lines that seem so futuristic and beyond anything, that I can only seem to wait years before anyone can climb them and say oh that, thats V17! Haha
thoughts//......
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Nov 12, 2003, 12:05 PM
Post #2 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
i believe that the same spaniar who claimed orujo did the allegidly 15c and received serious criticism from one of Hubers for it. He should propose 15a at the most and wait for others to confirm or even elevate the grade.
IMHO well see v17 boulders, but not so soon.
|
|
|
|
|
haldurin
Nov 12, 2003, 1:04 PM
Post #3 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2003
Posts: 36
|
Is it even physically possible to climb stuff that would be rated higher than that?
|
|
|
|
|
dc
Nov 12, 2003, 1:09 PM
Post #4 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2003
Posts: 355
|
In reply to: Is it even physically possible to climb stuff that would be rated higher than that?
'fraid so
|
|
|
|
|
rkclmbr
Nov 12, 2003, 1:43 PM
Post #5 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 46
|
In reply to: Is it even physically possible to climb stuff that would be rated higher than that?
Well, at one time it was thought that it was not possible to climb harder than 5.9... so I really doubt we are at/near the limit of the physically possible.
|
|
|
|
|
antigrav
Nov 12, 2003, 2:09 PM
Post #6 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2003
Posts: 215
|
Of course it will never "end"... The granularity of grades will increase towards the difficult end of the scale though. But that should only spark off much more discussion in fora like this! :D :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
stuck
Nov 12, 2003, 2:12 PM
Post #7 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2003
Posts: 76
|
Why do you care if he overgrades it. You will never even attempt the climb so the grade affects you in no way.
It isn't complicated, it's not politics. Ever wonder why he rated it in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
gbschmitt
Nov 12, 2003, 2:26 PM
Post #8 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 80
|
In reply to: It isn't complicated, it's not politics.
Actually the rating game on the upper end is a lot like politics...lots of inflated claims are being made in hope to get publicity..recognition...$$ponsorhips etc. If nobody would pay attention they would soon disappear.
Anyway who gives a sh*t let's go climb.
|
|
|
|
|
gbschmitt
Nov 12, 2003, 2:29 PM
Post #9 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 80
|
In reply to: It isn't complicated, it's not politics.
Actually the rating game on the upper end is a lot like politics...lots of inflated claims are being made in hope to get publicity..recognition...$$ponsorhips etc. If nobody would pay attention they would soon disappear.
Anyway who gives a sh*t let's go climb.
|
|
|
|
|
flyinghatchet
Nov 12, 2003, 11:04 PM
Post #10 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 742
|
In reply to: Anyway who gives a sh*t let's go climb.
wr0d.
|
|
|
|
|
occlimbr
Nov 12, 2003, 11:10 PM
Post #11 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 139
|
In reply to: In reply to: Is it even physically possible to climb stuff that would be rated higher than that? Well, at one time it was thought that it was not possible to climb harder than 5.9... so I really doubt we are at/near the limit of the physically possible.
Well thats because at that time they didnt have any methods of protecting harder climbs for the most part.
|
|
|
|
|
on_sight_man
Nov 12, 2003, 11:30 PM
Post #12 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
I think the grades have shot up because the sport took off in popularity and some money appeared in the equation. I doubt the grades will shoot up at the same rate though for pretty much the same reason. Now that there is money in it for the way high end, we've seen some of the real mutants out there who are not only genetically freaks, but also trained a lot since childhood. The grades will go up still, just way slower... Consider how fast the fastest runner is today versus, say, 50 years ago. The extremes of the population are faster, but not by that much.
|
|
|
|
|
brianthew
Nov 12, 2003, 11:57 PM
Post #13 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 1820
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Is it even physically possible to climb stuff that would be rated higher than that? Well, at one time it was thought that it was not possible to climb harder than 5.9... so I really doubt we are at/near the limit of the physically possible. Well thats because at that time they didnt have any methods of protecting harder climbs for the most part.
Much of it also has to do with the belief that the old schoolers had that they couldn't climb past 5.9. They figured 5.9 must be the max (I mean, it's a 9), and thus didn't rate higher. Beware of any 5.9 established in the 60s or before. Underestimate the old school 5.9 and prepare to be humbled.
|
|
|
|
|
taraus_de_bull
Nov 13, 2003, 12:19 AM
Post #14 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 1, 2003
Posts: 282
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Is it even physically possible to climb stuff that would be rated higher than that? Well, at one time it was thought that it was not possible to climb harder than 5.9... so I really doubt we are at/near the limit of the physically possible. Well thats because at that time they didnt have any methods of protecting harder climbs for the most part. Much of it also has to do with the belief that the old schoolers had that they couldn't climb past 5.9. They figured 5.9 must be the max (I mean, it's a 9), and thus didn't rate higher. Beware of any 5.9 established in the 60s or before. Underestimate the old school 5.9 and prepare to be humbled.
Yeah really, the old school climbs have some stiff ratings.
|
|
|
|
|
valeberga
Nov 13, 2003, 1:11 AM
Post #15 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 434
|
[potty-mouth rant mode]
This is ridiculous just pick a "highest" rating and stick to it for f*ck's sake, you little pissing-contest superstars. I bet he rates his next project a 5.15d, then next a 5.16a, etc etc every time he finishes a new climb.
The entire rating system is useless if you keep changing it every year. Pretty soon there will be 247 distinct difficulty levels, the vast majority of them "featherbagged" or whatever you grade freaks call it. What do we rate an old-school 5.9 now? 5.12b?
Here's a thought: next time you go climbing, instead of looking at the rating, just tell yourself it's a 5.6 and that you are a pathetic weak gumby with a whole lot more work to do. You'll gain back the humility you started with and you'll become a better climber.
[/potty-mouth rant mode]
|
|
|
|
|
studs
Nov 13, 2003, 8:54 PM
Post #16 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2003
Posts: 103
|
Ive actually done12bs that werereally 5.9and13b that was probably11d then I sent it with a sit start.Same rating.
|
|
|
|
|
superlob
Nov 14, 2003, 12:17 AM
Post #17 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2003
Posts: 30
|
Wonder if some people will sit down one day and come up with some global system so every climb in the world will have a rating. Then they can tailor the grades to match a specific meaning, power moves, technicals, etc. to match the scale.
My opinion climbs should be rated on fun factors, and how the moves are made. Some climbs out there even though I done it 100's of times, its still worth doing again because the move was so fun or funky to make.
I vote to start a global system that everyone can use :)
|
|
|
|
|
valeberga
Nov 14, 2003, 12:38 AM
Post #18 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 434
|
I think the best rating system I've come across is this. Your buddy who is a little better than you says, "you can climb it." Then you automatically know that it will be one of the hardest climbs you've done, but if you try real hard, you might just make it. Rating: "yeah, man."
The other type of climb is when your buddy, who is pretty much the same skill as you, but likes to say he is better than you, almost climbs it, but not quite, falls, and then its your turn, and you are just barely able to climb it. Rating: "whatever man."
|
|
|
|
|
couloir
Nov 14, 2003, 12:50 AM
Post #19 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2001
Posts: 304
|
Ratings are a joke nowadays. It was originally developed to give the person attempting the route an idea of the dangers and difficulties. Now they are used to get sponsors and to try and outdo the rest of the climbers. I've been on 5.8's that were harder than nearly every 5.10 I've been on. Just look at the climb, and that should give you an idea of whether or not you can climb it. And if you get halfway up it, and are stuck, just bail off some gear, so a climber that is a little bit better than you can grab it and say he got it from his new sponsor. There should only be two grades: Climbs you can do and Climbs you can't do!
|
|
|
|
|
haldurin
Nov 14, 2003, 1:48 PM
Post #20 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2003
Posts: 36
|
In reply to: Now that there is money in it for the way high end, we've seen some of the real mutants out there
I don't think anyone starts climbing because he/she wants to make money. There are easier ways to get money. Think about all the time the really good ones invest in climbing. When someone starts out he/she doesn't get money 4 it, so where does he/she get money from at this time?
|
|
|
|
|
gravitytheory
Nov 14, 2003, 4:44 PM
Post #21 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2003
Posts: 261
|
In reply to: Of course it will never "end"... The granularity of grades will increase towards the difficult end of the scale though. But that should only spark off much more discussion in fora like this! :D :shock:
Wouldn't the granularity decrease?
|
|
|
|
|
on_sight_man
Nov 14, 2003, 6:22 PM
Post #22 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: In reply to: Now that there is money in it for the way high end, we've seen some of the real mutants out there I don't think anyone starts climbing because he/she wants to make money. There are easier ways to get money. Think about all the time the really good ones invest in climbing. When someone starts out he/she doesn't get money 4 it, so where does he/she get money from at this time?
I agree. But it's like pro-tennis, or pro-gymnastics, or acting, or pro-basketball. There is a lot more at the end of the rainbow these days for kids. All that really means is that it's way more popular among a much larger pool of kids at a younger age, so the mutants actually train and do sick stuff. So there was this apparent jump in ability of the top climbers. The numbers changed as well clearly (an old school 5.9 is HARD) but I think there's also been a huge jump in actual ability due to training methods and genetic cherry picking.
|
|
|
|
|
valeberga
Nov 14, 2003, 7:31 PM
Post #23 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 434
|
I still say nothing should ever be rated higher than 5.15a, no matter how hard it is. Keep the rating system standard. 5.15c? Never heard of it. Doesn't exist. If he says it's the hardest climb ever done by man, well then it's a 5.15a.
But don't listen to me, I don't climb 5.15 or 5.14. Or many grades below for that matter.
But should we all pay another $5 for shoes, because some guy says he climbed a "5.15c" so he could get sponsored? No, I believe I have right not want to support someone who makes a mockery of our rating system.
|
|
|
|
|
haldurin
Nov 15, 2003, 4:28 PM
Post #24 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2003
Posts: 36
|
@ valeberga why should nothing be rated higher than 5.15a when it is harder than 5.15a ? i don't get it ....
|
|
|
|
|
wyattearp
Nov 15, 2003, 5:01 PM
Post #25 of 35
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2003
Posts: 365
|
In reply to: @ valeberga why should nothing be rated higher than 5.15a when it is harder than 5.15a ? i don't get it ....
I think things will be arted above 5.15a, but even that grade is kind of elusive. Chris sent relization, but he never gradedit! THe whole climbing community graded it that becasue it was Chris's project! Yeah Sharma is the man, and mutant strong, but he never graded Relization. And for a relativly unknown climber who has only climbed 5.14c and put up an unconfirmed 5.14d, to all off a sudden rise to the top of the climbing world, and say I am the best. That is basically what he has done, and to out right refuse to climb it in front of any climbing "authority" is pretty sketchy! Alex huber another mutant climber, thinks Fernandez's grade proposal is ridiculous, because he see's no prior climbs or ability that puts him above all the other ridiculously hard climbers out there. The top climbers in the world have all progressed over the years, not just jumped 4 grades harder then anything we have climbed, its kind of like somone claiming V18/19, while V15 is still under heavy scrutiny, because it has become a new game who can put up the most V15's. Since Nicole Dreamtime, there have been dozens of other unconfirmed V15's yet no one is really repeating anyone else's problems except Nicole, zengral and Graham! And now Graham, who I guess grades stiff, has downgraded such potentail V15's of Klem Loskot, yet it has taken years for Klem to complete the project, so it seems Like v15 to him! Who knows where grades will be in the next 4 years!!!! :?:
|
|
|
|
|
whistleblower
Nov 15, 2003, 5:02 PM
Post #26 of 35
(3270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2003
Posts: 41
|
In reply to: ...Mutant kids seem to pop up everywhere including Daniel woods the 14 year old pulling 14's!...thoughts??
I saw Daniel Woods in Eldorado Canyon this summer working on The Monument (a 5.12c overhanging climb).
Later that day he was requesting tension while trying to climb the Bastille Crack which is 5.7. Well... I guess I can't blame him - the Bastille Crack requires placing your own gear.
|
|
|
|
|
valeberga
Nov 15, 2003, 5:08 PM
Post #27 of 35
(3270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 434
|
In reply to: I bet he rates his next project a 5.15d, then next a 5.16a, etc etc every time he finishes a new climb. The entire rating system is useless if you keep changing it every year. Pretty soon there will be 247 distinct difficulty levels, the vast majority of them "featherbagged" or whatever you grade freaks call it. What do we rate an old-school 5.9 now? 5.12b? Here's a thought: next time you go climbing, instead of looking at the rating, just tell yourself it's a 5.6 and that you are a pathetic weak gumby with a whole lot more work to do. You'll gain back the humility you started with and you'll become a better climber.
I don't think anything should be rated above 5.15a because of the reasons I stated earlier. I also think I read somewhere that the idea behind even having a 5.15 rating, is that it is supposed to be temporary until the climb can be given a suitable 5.14 grade.
The problem is, every time this guy, or others of his caliber, finish another climb, they are going to think it was a little harder and give it the next "highest rating ever climbed." I think this is irresponsible because down the road we get ratings like "5.37q" or what not. Come on guys we already have plenty of grades to work with here:
5.1 to 5.9 -- 9 grades
+
5.10a to 5.15a -- 21 grades
=
30 grades. Just fit the new climbs into this system. I know that might necessitate the reversal of a whole lot of featherbagging that's happened in the past 30 years, but tough. After all, 5.9 was a lot harder back in the old days, wasn't it? Show some respect for the old-timers.
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Nov 15, 2003, 5:09 PM
Post #28 of 35
(3270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
rating systems have always been open-ended, and in my opinion always should be. just about every season people are getting stronger and realizing new techniques to climb what was once deemed "impossible."
i've been climbing long enough that i can remember when you were one of the best climbers around if you sent a 5.9. as mentioned earlier in this post, the initial reluctance to rate anything harder than this led to many extremely sandbagged routes and a real confusion within that grade. when the 5.10 rating was first introduced many of these same arguments appeared, only to fade away once the real need for it was realized. this will happen in this case as well.
if the system had a definite top end limit, every time a new hardest route was put up the entire system would have to re-adust down to the bottom to keep it all relative. this would cause many more problems than the occasional inaccuracies of the current system.
every time a new grade is proposed its accuracy is questioned. it's only with subsequent redpoints that a consensus is arrived at and a true rating can be assumed. until then the rating is only a suggestion based on the developers thoughts and comparisons to other routes he/she's climbed. bottom line, any rating is only a suggestion and should be taken as such by you when you choose to attempt the climb. it's really just a guide and so much weight and emphasis should not be placed on it.
as for the future. i strongly believe that 5.17 and V18 are feasible in time.
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Nov 15, 2003, 5:19 PM
Post #29 of 35
(3270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
In reply to: I saw Daniel Woods in Eldorado Canyon this summer working on The Monument (a 5.12c overhanging climb). Later that day he was requesting tension while trying to climb the Bastille Crack which is 5.7. Well... I guess I can't blame him - the Bastille Crack requires placing your own gear.
unless i'm missing some sort of subtle inuendo here, this post seems way off topic. not only that, but the kid (although strong) is only 14 and probably did not grow up climbing cracks and developing skills like jamming. the climbs he's succeeded on have probably fit his body type and style of climbing while the Monument may not.
not everyone climbs their best on a given day (i'm sure this is even true for you) and this post can only be seen as spiteful and perhaps even a bit driven by jealousy (i can't climb what he can - so why not attack a little and bring him closer to my level).
how about a little mutual respect and support out there?!
|
|
|
|
|
valeberga
Nov 15, 2003, 5:31 PM
Post #30 of 35
(3270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 434
|
In reply to: as for the future. i strongly believe that 5.17 and V18 are feasible in time.
I'm sure someone will claim to have climbed a "5.17" soon enough. I just have strong doubts that it will deserve that rating. There is a HUGE difference in difficulty between 5.13 and 5.10. I'd say most climbers spend their whole lives trying move up just those three grades, and a good lot of them never even do so. Will there be such a big difference between 5.17 and 5.14? I doubt it.
The problem is, the people who are making up these new highest ratings are just the people who I wouldn't trust to be objective. It's in their personal interests to tell themselves that they are the best climber in the world, and the attention one gets from claiming a yet nonexistant grade is sure to benefit their status for sponsorship. Like I said before, it's a pissing contest that makes a mockery of our rating system. But we don't have any "grade police" so why should I even complain.
This may or may not illustrate my point, but how many climbs exist that are rated 5.14a? 5.14b? 5.14c? 5.14d? The sum total? I'm willing to bet surprisingly few. I don't agree that a new grade should be invented for every new "hardest" climb. I think the 5.14 grade should have a good 50 or 100 climbs in it before we even think about cracking open 5.15.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Nov 15, 2003, 5:55 PM
Post #31 of 35
(3270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
I don't have any problem with a ratings scale for climbing or bouldering being open ended. But, I think the continual grade inflation that has occurred over the last 20 or so years is ridiculous.
Climbs that were rated 5.10 when the grade was originated are damned hard. If you don't believe me go and do Coexistence, Fat City, Matinee or Stirrup Trouble in the Gunks. Or go climb Count Dracula, Clean and Jerk, Rubicon or O'Kelly's Crack at Joshua Tree. Routes put up in newer areas are almost always "softer" that what 5.10 originally represented.
In bouldering the same thing has happened. Additionally, as John Sherman has pointed out, those people seeking "fame" are continually slicing the loaf thinner and thinner in order to establish bigger numbers. As an example, there are unrepeated boulder problems from 20+ years ago that used to be designated V10. Now V15 supposedly exists, but these problems remain unrepeated.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Nov 15, 2003, 6:38 PM
Post #32 of 35
(3270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
In reply to: I think the 5.14 grade should have a good 50 or 100 climbs in it before we even think about cracking open 5.15.
apparently you haven't been paying attention. easy to do as several of these routes are unreported or lie in newer areas where there are not yet guidebooks. i'd venture a guess that there are somewhere around 500 climbs of this grade in north america. i know of a couple dozen in southern california alone. if you enlarge the focus to the world, i'm sure that you would be talking about 2000 or more.
while i'm sure that there is some "fluffing" of the grades to impress sponsors or other climbers, some of these newer high-end 5.14 sport climbs really are that much harder. as for the 5.15's, i can't speak for them as i've yet to see or get on one.
i think many of the climbs that are truly overrated will settle into their accurate ratings in the near future. this is always the case whether we're talking about 5.10's or harder routes.
|
|
|
|
|
valeberga
Nov 15, 2003, 6:59 PM
Post #33 of 35
(3270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 434
|
Well if you're right then I have grossly underestimated. I just hope that these climbs get settled into the grades they belong too before "we" (certainly not I) start tacking on more grades.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Nov 15, 2003, 7:11 PM
Post #34 of 35
(3270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
Mozart wrote symphonies as a child. When the next climbing Mozart comes along 5.16 could come along no problem.
Objections to higher ratings were raising at the advent of 5.10, 5.11, 5.12 and so on, for the same reasons stated on this threah. EVERY TIME! Experience has shown me that these objections are short sighted at best.
I can easily understand the gradations within the ratings in the realm that I climb in. To assume they don't exist within the higher realm of more skilled and experienced climbers is silly. I have yet to hear one honemaster say "5.13, 5.14 it's all the same" so speculation about ratings fluff at levels you can't climb is just that, speculation and spray.
As for the 5.15c claim. If you look into the details of how the guy did it, it seems possible although I'm bummed he wouldn't repeat it for witnesses. If I worked a route every day for years I could send 4 letter grades harder than my previous numbers.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
socalbolter
Nov 15, 2003, 7:33 PM
Post #35 of 35
(3270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 796
|
valeberga -
not only do i think my estimates are accurate, but i think they might be conservative.
you are not alone in your concerns and, as karlbaba pointed out, this happens with every new grade.
as i said there is some fluffing occuring, but most guys i know developing harder routes do their best to rate accurately. in fact, some even sandbag a bit to avoid this type of controversy. another thing that you might be interested in knowing (not to single you out, just to respond to some of your comments) is that not all 5.14 climbers are sponsored and have monetary incentives to climb harder. there are many "regular joes" out there who've put in their time and are now reaping the fruits of their hard work and beginning to succeed at this level.
hopefully whatever overgrading is occurring will stay the exception and not become the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
