Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Trad Climbing:
v4/5.12?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Trad Climbing

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


fracture


Mar 17, 2006, 3:18 AM
Post #26 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Very poorly. 100' of v1 would be at least 5.12+.

For any of you who find the above hard to believe, try the route Goliath at Enchanted Tower. It is about 110' long, mostly V1, with one section that might be an easy V2, and it is rated 5.13a.


fracture


Mar 17, 2006, 3:52 AM
Post #27 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

The other thing worth mentioning here since so many people don't (or won't) grok it, is that the Hueco scale and the YDS are the same type of grading systems and therefore the grade for any given sequence of moves can be mapped 1-to-1 between them. They both take cumulative difficulty into account (for example, if you linkup two V4's in a row without rest, the resulting problem is often going to be in the V5-V6 range). Because of this, when you are talking about the difficulty of moves or sections on a continuous route with moves of nearly the same difficulty, the grade you get will be "elastic" based on the length of the section, so to speak.

To use Goliath as an example (as I have never tried To Bolt or Not To Be): while you may be able to say that any arbitrary 4-move sequence on the whole route (except the slab beginning) is no harder than V1 or V2 (5.11a/b), you can probably also simultaneously say that no 20 move sequence on the whole route is easier than V4.

Further, climbing the route to the halfway anchors has an established grade of 5.12c (which might correspond to a hard V5, and I would estimate it is probably around a 40-50 move section). I would suggest climbing from that anchor to the top is around 5.12c as well.

So from one perspective, the route is 110' of stacked V1's, from another, it is two 12c's in a row without a good rest, and from another, it is a really, really long V7.

If it sounds weird to call an 110' climb a V7, keep in mind that there are many examples of climbs of that length (or longer) that are graded on the Hueco scale (for example, there is an 135' long V8 endurance traverse at the Gymnasium in Hueco).


kalcario


Mar 17, 2006, 4:14 AM
Post #28 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
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?

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.


curt


Mar 17, 2006, 4:53 AM
Post #29 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
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.

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.

Curt


whiteflash


Mar 17, 2006, 6:12 AM
Post #30 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 7, 2003
Posts: 59

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

'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.


fracture


Mar 17, 2006, 6:43 AM
Post #31 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
'Grok' wow, Stranger in a Strange Land reference.

Ah yes. It is pretty commonly used among software developers these days, though, so it is easy to forget it is a neologism. ;)

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

Assuming you mean "12a" by "5.12", I disagree.

As Kalcario mentions, there are many routes graded 12a that you can do with no more power than is needed to do a V1 or V2 crux. And as Curt points out in his retort, the difficulty of the individual moves on routes is in general much lower (aside from one-move-wonder type situations) compared to boulder problems. (Of course, Curt is leaving out that to climb the route, you will need a lot more efficient movement on those easy moves than your typical bouldering-only climbers are capable of.)

However, if you do find those one move wonder 12a's, the substantive "move" (which usually is more like a 4-5 move sequence) is likely to be around V4 (in my experience). Similarly, if you find a 30 move V4 traverse or roof problem, it will probably feel like a 12a.

The 30-move V4 (or "12a") may feel a lot harder to you than the prototypical 4-8 move V4, but there are many people who would say the opposite.


kalcario


Mar 17, 2006, 7:14 AM
Post #32 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

*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.


curt


Mar 17, 2006, 7:25 AM
Post #33 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
*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.

Except that (in my opinion) mid 5.13 is equal to V8 or so, in terms of absolute difficulty. I'm not sure why you disagree. I understand that you sport climb at mid 5.13--so, why can't you boulder V8?

Curt


rckymtnlowballer


Mar 19, 2006, 2:49 AM
Post #34 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 13, 2006
Posts: 23

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
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?

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.



You just may be one of the dumbest people alive.


jitterbugclimb


Mar 19, 2006, 3:33 AM
Post #35 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2005
Posts: 116

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jeeez people! Bouldering takes on a life of it's own at the higher grades. While there are routes that may be 100 feet with multiple V3 cruxes rated 5.14, I challenge you to find a route containing multiple V12 cruxes anywhere in the world. At that point, bouldering becomes a totally separate form of climbing and...
In reply to:
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.
...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!


lowerme


Mar 19, 2006, 5:18 AM
Post #36 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 7, 2006
Posts: 3

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In ca. it always appeared to me that a routes rating was closely related to the most difficult move, or series of moves, on what would be termed "the crux pitch". And yes, if the pitch was considered "sustained", (ie. an unrelenting series of 5.9 moves), it could receive an endurance factor bump, this is an issue that was sometimes debated. It also seemed that the term "boulder problem" usually appeared in 5th class guidebooks when difficult or highly technical moves were encountered at the begining, (near the ground-as in bouldering), of a route that were uncharacteristic of, (usually harder than), the rest of the route, and usually appeared as the phrase "boulder problem start". The rating that these routes received often applied only to the moves on the route proper, and could entirely neglect the "boulder problem" entry moves. But, as mentioned in another post, certain aspects of climbing, (1st ascentionists, and guidebook authors included), can be highly subjective and idiosyncratic, and I have seen the description, "boulder problem crux" on occasion.


calii22


Mar 19, 2006, 7:12 AM
Post #37 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 8, 2004
Posts: 45

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

oh you silly little people why oh why must these to seperate sports always be competeing with on another they are nothing alike please sink this into your skull the 5 grade and the v grade can never be compareed with one another i have never felt a v3 move on a 5-12 only v2s. are on 5-12s at the most . I have never felt a 5-12 move on a v2 problem , they are two very seperate techniqces,strenghs, balances and mentallity thoughts.


mattm


Mar 22, 2006, 11:40 PM
Post #38 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 640

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I think the thing to keep in mind here is the purpose of the two scales and what they describe. YDS scales, in general, describe the OVERALL difficulty of a longer route. In the past this was the individual move difficulty but it was soon recognized that LENGTH plays and important role as well. THe V-scale system describes short difficult moves. I think things get skewed when problems that are 40 ft long get V ratings - that's a route in my opinion. (Mind you it's ALL someone's opinion) I think the current trend of a YDS rating with a sub-description in Vscale is an attempt to address the YDS problems with one-move-wonders. I hate when an 11a is one or two really hard sequences with lots of easy stuff - not my type of 11a. I agree that harder YDS routes are often longer stretches of easier V moves. (I can boulder V5-V6 but haven't done a lot of 12s yet - I've got the power, it's the length that makes it hard)

Maybe the Brits and their crazy grading system aren't that crazy after all....
Future grades in the US could look like this 5.12c V2 (enduro route) or 5.12c V5 - one move wonder. Hmmm - or I could just enjoy sending or getting spanked on 5.12s regardless of their individual moves.... One thing that does need to change is giving long boulder problems V ratings - longer than 20 or 30 ft is a route in my opinion.


fluxus


Mar 23, 2006, 12:42 AM
Post #39 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 3, 2003
Posts: 947

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
Usually, 12a's have v1 cruxes, 12c's v3, 13a's v5, etc.

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.

But what matters is not that we all agree, we won't. What matters is that as individuals we are consistent in our assessment of the demands of a route. If for no other reason than when training we should be able to structure our activities so that they accuratly reflect the demands of the routes we train for. At least that one way to look at it.


styndall


Mar 23, 2006, 12:43 AM
Post #40 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
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.
...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.


jitterbugclimb


Mar 23, 2006, 1:24 AM
Post #41 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2005
Posts: 116

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
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.
...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.

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.


curt


Mar 23, 2006, 1:37 AM
Post #42 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
...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.

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


styndall


Mar 23, 2006, 1:40 AM
Post #43 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
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.

I didn't miss the point, rather you're getting me wrong here. You're obviously a very strong boulderer. You have a V11 recorded on your profile, so evidently you climb well and hard with some technique. By general thought, most routes below around 13c or should have no moves that you wouldn't consider cruiser, yet I have doubts as to whether that's actually the case. I know a considerable number of boulderers who do pull fairly big numbers, but who definitely don't consider 5.12 to be easy or cruiseworthy.

Kalcario has been around a while, and he is somewhat contemptuous of people who boulder exclusively (a set of which I am one, to be sure), but he does have some good points as regards the relative rating of routes and boulder problems.


styndall


Mar 23, 2006, 1:46 AM
Post #44 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
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

Yeah, certainly does. When I climbed my first V5, a guy at the UGA rock gym was all astounding, since he'd watched me doing my afore-mentioned flailing on 5.11. He'd never gotten a 5, even though he'd climbed 12d at Foster Falls.

I've just seen lots more cases of my particular syndrome than his. Maybe it's an area thing.


fracture


Apr 2, 2006, 6:02 PM
Post #45 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
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?

I don't think I have ever been on a 5.10 route that had a real V1 on it (but maybe I am on the wrong routes). I think the comparison was between a V1 (or probably V0) and the entire 5.10---not just the crux. I.e., a problem that was rated "B5.10" back in the day might be between V0, V0+ and V1 (depending on the problem). At one older bouldering area here, several of the old "B5.12" problems are now either V4 or V5---though I have only rarely seen moves nearly as hard on sport routes easier than 12d or 13a.

Melon Patch at Hueco might be a good example of these comparisons: it is listed in Sherman's guidebook as a grade standard for V0, and certainly as long as many climbs with a YDS grade. (I'd think around 5.10-?)

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

Since you've probably done at least 10 times as many 12a's as me, I'll definitely defer to your experience. :)

I will mention, though, that while at my local crags in Austin, the 5.12a's do tend to have cruxes harder than V1 (this is probably because our routes are very short and tend to be power-endurance climbing), I have also been on longer 5.12a's in places like Potrero where there were probably no moves even as hard as V1. (Of course, I've also been on at least one "5.12a" in Potrero that isn't any harder than 5.11a/b, so go figure.)

On a side note: part of the problem with the V-scale is that the lower grades are very "chunky". V1 and V2 encompass a large range of difficulty when compared to the YDS scale, or font bouldering grades. This makes some of these comparisons harder to understand, because the difference between a V1 and V2 is actually pretty significant. And actually more significant (relative to the YDS, at least, which is probably not linear either) than the difference between a V7 and a V8. (For this reason I don't mind the addition of plus grades to the V-scale below V4 or V5.)


kalcario


Apr 2, 2006, 10:57 PM
Post #46 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

* 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?


curt


Apr 2, 2006, 11:53 PM
Post #47 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
...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.

I doubt it. I've bouldered pretty hard--after a day of doing hard routes.

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

I'm not sure, but that fact doesn't do much to reinforce your argument. The fact is that virtually all of the high point "problems" at the PBC are long sustained routes that are top-roped for the contest. So, to call the PBC a bouldering contest is basically incorrect. It's a misnomer.

Curt


weschrist


Apr 3, 2006, 12:01 AM
Post #48 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2004
Posts: 579

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

v4, 512, B2... a warm up is a warm up, leave it at that.


gwynn


Apr 3, 2006, 12:46 AM
Post #49 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 3, 2006
Posts: 4

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

2 completely different animals. When I started climbing I mostly bouldered and could send V4 after about 2 months, but could not climb 5.11a. 7 months later after almost exclusively sport climbing, I could send 5.12a. You would think that after that I could easily climb V4, not the case, I probably boulder at the same level that I left off.


jitterbugclimb


Apr 3, 2006, 12:56 AM
Post #50 of 52 (5030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 8, 2005
Posts: 116

Re: v4/5.12? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
* 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?

Ha! I get it. You're just trolling for people to argue with. I'm guessing that you don't really believe half the shit you write. You know, sport climbing is just "practice and training" for trad climbing, which in turn is only practice for alpine climbing :roll: . Don't know exactly where aid climbing fits in.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Disciplines : Trad Climbing

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook