|
wyattearp
Nov 12, 2003, 7:37 AM
Post #1 of 35
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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...$$ponsorhips etc. If nobody would pay attention they would soon disappear.
Anyway who gives a sh*t let's go climb.
|
|
|
|
|
gbschmitt
Nov 12, 2003, 2:29 PM
Post #9 of 35
(4117 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 80
|
In reply to: It isn't complicated, it's not politics.
Actually the rating game on the upper end is a lot like politics...lots of inflated claims are being made in hope to get publicity..recognition...$$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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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
(4117 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!!!! :?:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
