|
reg
Feb 14, 2006, 3:46 PM
Post #1 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
i searched the forums a little but didn't get the answer. what is a "boulder problem" ie: "I'll give you some experience that is relevant IMO. I bolted and climbed a route that basically was 5.8 climbing to a V4 boulder problem, with easier (5.10ish) moves to the anchors once past the crux."
|
|
|
|
|
johnathon78
Feb 14, 2006, 3:53 PM
Post #2 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2004
Posts: 340
|
wait.......what?
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Feb 14, 2006, 3:54 PM
Post #3 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
The crux is equivalent to doing a v4 boulder problem (~5.12)...
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Feb 14, 2006, 4:02 PM
Post #4 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
In reply to: The crux is equivalent to doing a v4 boulder problem (~5.12)...
whats the difference between a gaston 100' up v.s. 1' up
|
|
|
|
|
shiggetyshiva
Feb 14, 2006, 4:06 PM
Post #5 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2005
Posts: 174
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
valeberga
Feb 14, 2006, 4:17 PM
Post #6 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 434
|
It's my impression that the highest quality routes have more consistent difficulty. If any section of the route is too easy for too long, it diminishes the experience of the route.
|
|
|
|
|
kyote321
Feb 14, 2006, 4:21 PM
Post #7 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 636
|
often, a 5.12 will have a longish v3 section
some 5.12s never have move over v2, but there are a lot of them without recovery
|
|
|
|
|
krusher4
Feb 14, 2006, 4:21 PM
Post #8 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2005
Posts: 997
|
In reply to: 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 like the way you put that It makes sense. It's too hard to say 5.12 is equal to V4, I would say maybe...if the V4 is 100 ft??? Heck I dont know.....
|
|
|
|
|
gogo
Feb 14, 2006, 4:38 PM
Post #9 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 198
|
The hardest move on a 5.12a can be considered the relative equivalent of the moves on a V4 boulder problem. . .
obviously the conversion has to be taken with a grain of salt, because it it is never the exact same - the difference in doing a 10 move sequence and a 30-40 move sequence.
|
|
|
|
|
cadaverchris
Feb 14, 2006, 4:56 PM
Post #10 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 323
|
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.
the other, (Newer perhaps) thinking in describing routes is to break it up into boulder problems downplaying the importance of the easier moves linking them. " ya-bra it starts off with a sick v3 problem into very casual climbing, then scum an ok knee-bar rest and finishes with a long v4 sequence." which is typically followed by "squeeze juice outta them holds, allez, or press it out!"
imho the first method works best for sustained routes. a 100 ft of v1 is poorly described as a bp- its a 5.10 something (whatever the conversion). the second method of descriptions works well for routes that have distinct cruxes- and with a population that is familiar working short sequences. i like using them both at different times.
-cadaverchris
|
|
|
|
|
reg
Feb 14, 2006, 5:04 PM
Post #11 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1560
|
thanks everyone for those answers but i'm still not getting it. i'm thinking the V's ought not be mixed with the YDS,,,,,,,,,,, wait hold the presses i think i've got it! i never thought of boulder ratings as "different" like rating systems in other countries so that a corellation was needed to equate one to the other ie: 5.?=V?=E.?. ok is that it? (boy i can be thick sometimes)
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Feb 14, 2006, 5:14 PM
Post #12 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
In reply to: 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.
Nope. Routes have always been rated for cumulative difficulty, not how hard the hardest move is.
*a 100 ft of v1 is poorly described as a bp- its a 5.10 something (whatever the conversion).*
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.
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Feb 14, 2006, 5:18 PM
Post #13 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: In reply to: The crux is equivalent to doing a v4 boulder problem (~5.12)... whats the difference between a gaston 100' up v.s. 1' up
You had to do 30 moves before you got to that point so therefore it is harder. You should grade the route based on its overall difficulty, not necessarily the difficulty of a crux move.
Edit: Submitted and realised kalcario beat me to it! Wouldn't necessarily agree with his conversion from boulder grades for cruxes with route grades. However, it all depends on what kind of routes you frequently climb (whether they are endurance or cruxy). I climb quite a few cruxy routes where it is easy climbing (for the grade) up to a series of bouldery moves. In this case the boulder grade can be a bit higher than what kalcario suggested.
|
|
|
|
|
cadaverchris
Feb 14, 2006, 5:52 PM
Post #14 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 323
|
In reply to: In reply to: 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. Nope. Routes have always been rated for cumulative difficulty, not how hard the hardest move is.
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
|
|
|
|
|
jaybro
Feb 14, 2006, 6:00 PM
Post #15 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 441
|
cadaverchris wrote:
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.
"Nope. Routes have always been rated for cumulative difficulty, not how hard the hardest move is."
Buzzz
No, both wrong.
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. Though areas often lean in one direction or another.
ie Indian creek vs Eldo.
|
|
|
|
|
markd
Feb 14, 2006, 6:10 PM
Post #16 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2002
Posts: 147
|
In reply to: 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.
have you done to bolt or not to be? you must be trolling.
|
|
|
|
|
daithi
Feb 14, 2006, 6:14 PM
Post #17 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: 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
The YDS as it was originally devised was for the hardest move on a particular route. I can only imagine the limitations of grading routes like this was soon realised and they started grading them based on overall difficulty like almost every other system in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
baigot
Feb 14, 2006, 6:45 PM
Post #18 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2003
Posts: 87
|
Nobody can amount the dificulty of a route...itīs a world of subjectives.
More climbing less numbers...
cheers...
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Feb 14, 2006, 6:54 PM
Post #19 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*have you done to bolt or not to be? you must be trolling.*
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.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Feb 14, 2006, 7:07 PM
Post #20 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
In reply to: 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.
Well, of course, but the one move wonder will have a much harder crux than the enduro route with the same grade. YDS doesn't work as well on one move wonders as it does on sustained climbs. That doesn't mean there is no consensus, though.
|
|
|
|
|
fishbelly
Feb 14, 2006, 7:08 PM
Post #21 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2004
Posts: 273
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: 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. Nope. Routes have always been rated for cumulative difficulty, not how hard the hardest move is. 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
It has gone both ways. Just depends who you were trying to dis at the time.
Example East coast climber comes back after a trip out west. Or out side his region. " Route were easier they call consistent 5,9..5.10
Then there's Tennish anyone at the Gunks.
Are we grading single pitch. Full rope length or less. Multi pitch. Sport route, good pro or no pro.
Bouldering is kind of limited compared to actual climbing
|
|
|
|
|
markd
Feb 14, 2006, 11:55 PM
Post #22 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2002
Posts: 147
|
In reply to: 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?
|
|
|
|
|
rckymtnlowballer
Mar 17, 2006, 2:39 AM
Post #23 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2006
Posts: 23
|
5.8 climbing really isn't nearly hard enough climbing to add to cumulative difficulty. Especially for a fit climber. V4 is 11d. If the 5.10 moves you have to pull after the crux are harder even for a fit climber than it sounds like you might be on the money with 12a, if not, stick with the crux and grade it 11d.
current trends don't dictate route grades the route does. If you've done enough climbs in the 11d - 12a arena well then you'd know and you wouldn't have to ask.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 17, 2006, 2:42 AM
Post #24 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: 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?
Although Joe often oversimplifies this particular topic, he has a valid point for very sustained routes. Have you done Sign of the Cross, V3 at Hueco? Can you imagine what the rating of a pitch would be if you stacked 10 of those--one on top of another. It would be brutal--and very few people would be able to do it.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Mar 17, 2006, 3:13 AM
Post #25 of 52
(6026 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: 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?
Performance Rock Climbing describes it as "continuous 12- cruxes". (The book predated the V-scale, or it would've probably said "V4".)
Got a link to the Ian Caldwell thing so we can see exactly what he said?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
