|
miademus
Mar 27, 2007, 6:15 PM
Post #1 of 71
(3271 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2005
Posts: 511
|
I'm not offending anyone, but i got never introduced to routes under 6a/5.10a ....
|
|
|
|
|
redpoint73
Mar 27, 2007, 6:17 PM
Post #2 of 71
(3263 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 1717
|
They are like 5.10 routes, but a bit easier.
|
|
|
|
|
devils_advocate
Mar 27, 2007, 6:18 PM
Post #3 of 71
(3255 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2006
Posts: 1823
|
You've climbed as light as 5.10a? How embarrassing.
|
|
|
|
|
miademus
Mar 27, 2007, 6:29 PM
Post #4 of 71
(3224 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2005
Posts: 511
|
so the holds are all jugs ....no steep walls?
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Mar 27, 2007, 6:36 PM
Post #6 of 71
(3198 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
miademus wrote: so the holds are all jugs ....no steep walls?
Sure there are steep 5.9s, and 5.9s with roofs. There are also very thin face and slab 5.9s.
To complicate things a 5.9 in one area might actually be way easier/harder than the 5.10s that you've played on.
Way too freakn' subjective.
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
Mar 27, 2007, 6:50 PM
Post #7 of 71
(3173 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Hey,
5.9+ to me are usually like 5.8s, only they tend to have an awkward or strenuous move on them [not the 5.9+ slab/friction routes, of course].
Also, for what it's worth, if the guidebook lists the FA DATE... PAY ATTENTION!!! If it is a 5.9+ put up in the 70's, be prepared for a 5.10 or harder route. I've been hit by stuff like that on plenty of 5.9s [and even 5.7, 5.8] put up in the 70s, so now I pay more attention to the FA dates.
PS
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Mar 27, 2007, 6:52 PM
Post #8 of 71
(3167 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
5.9+ trad has humbled many a modern 5.10 climber I would dare say
|
|
|
|
|
jp_sucks
Mar 27, 2007, 7:01 PM
Post #9 of 71
(3137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2006
Posts: 240
|
5.9+ in the Canadian Rockies checks in at around 5.11+ or 5.12
|
|
|
|
|
diophantus
Mar 27, 2007, 7:02 PM
Post #10 of 71
(3131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2006
Posts: 354
|
miademus wrote: I'm not offending anyone, but i got never introduced to routes under 6a/5.10a ....
I've never climbing under 5.11a, what are they like?
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Mar 27, 2007, 7:09 PM
Post #11 of 71
(3113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
redpoint73 wrote: They are like 5.10 routes, but a bit easier.
Except (as has been mentioned) if they were put in <1980 they are probably considerably harder then today's 5.10 routes (or 5.11 if you are counting plastic).
|
|
|
|
|
lodi5onu
Mar 27, 2007, 7:10 PM
Post #12 of 71
(3107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 26, 2006
Posts: 335
|
that's right, you're not offending anyone, so don't flatter yourself
funny you remember the exact grade of the "easiest" route you've ever climbed..shah
|
|
|
|
|
epoch
Moderator
Mar 27, 2007, 7:13 PM
Post #13 of 71
(3096 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
troll
...and a bad one at that.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Mar 27, 2007, 7:23 PM
Post #14 of 71
(3068 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
epoch wrote: troll ...and a bad one at that.
yeah seriously, with the bad english he has everything going for him in trolling....geesh, way to dissappoint, dude.
|
|
|
|
|
miademus
Mar 27, 2007, 7:36 PM
Post #15 of 71
(3036 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2005
Posts: 511
|
alpinismo_flujo wrote: redpoint73 wrote: They are like 5.10 routes, but a bit easier. Or...they are like 5.9 routes, but a bit harder.  Miademus -This question is almost impossible to answer.....if your real question is whether you should step up and try a +5.9 - well....I ask you: "why not?"
well i would love to give a 5.9 a try but there isn't any such routes bolted or even named.
|
|
|
|
|
miademus
Mar 27, 2007, 7:46 PM
Post #16 of 71
(3013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2005
Posts: 511
|
granite_grrl wrote: miademus wrote: so the holds are all jugs ....no steep walls? To complicate things a 5.9 in one area might actually be way easier/harder than the 5.10s that you've played on. Way too freakn' subjective.
it's so what against of what i've been told...roof and still 5.9 ?
|
|
|
|
|
redpoint73
Mar 27, 2007, 7:53 PM
Post #17 of 71
(2999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 1717
|
miademus wrote: granite_grrl wrote: miademus wrote: so the holds are all jugs ....no steep walls? To complicate things a 5.9 in one area might actually be way easier/harder than the 5.10s that you've played on. Way too freakn' subjective. it's so what against of what i've been told...roof and still 5.9 ?
Yeah, how about a 5.6 roof (Gunks) ???
|
|
|
|
|
miademus
Mar 27, 2007, 7:59 PM
Post #18 of 71
(2983 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2005
Posts: 511
|
i better ask another question,
What are your parameters to set a grade?
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Mar 27, 2007, 8:04 PM
Post #19 of 71
(2966 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
miademus wrote: i better ask another question, What are your parameters to set a grade?
Me personally? It comes down to one question: what number can I assign that'll make me look hard core and piss off as many people as possible?
redpoint73 wrote: Yeah, how about a 5.6 roof (Gunks) ???
Psht! The Gunks is so soft. Where I climb (in my head at work or sometimes while asleep) the grades are way stiffer (and I still send everything).
(This post was edited by kriso9tails on Mar 27, 2007, 8:05 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Mar 27, 2007, 8:05 PM
Post #20 of 71
(2964 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
In the book Rock Climbing at Vedauwoo, Wyoming, the author states, “Also, 5.9+ has tended historically to be a generic rating, often encompassing climbs harder than 5.7 but less difficult than 10d.»
Does that give you a clear idea of what the rating means?
Cheers,
Rob.calm
|
|
|
|
|
redpoint73
Mar 27, 2007, 8:09 PM
Post #21 of 71
(2953 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 1717
|
miademus wrote: i better ask another question, What are your parameters to set a grade?
1) How hard the moves feel relative to tearing a phone book in half
2) How drunk you are
3) How drunk your friends are (your "concensus")
4) How much you want to sandbag and therefore not face the embarrassment of others downgrading your route
5) Add an "R" or "X" depending on if there is any boobies or penetration
6) Don't forget the jump (J) rating
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Mar 27, 2007, 8:19 PM
Post #22 of 71
(2926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
miademus wrote: I'm not offending anyone, but i got never introduced to routes under 6a/5.10a ....
try getting out more. If you do any multipitch you will find that occasional easy 5.9 stuck in with all the 5.11 and 5.12
You're welcome
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
miademus
Mar 27, 2007, 8:40 PM
Post #23 of 71
(2886 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2005
Posts: 511
|
...with every post i get more confused...
whats the use of "R","X" rates?
|
|
|
|
|
redpoint73
Mar 27, 2007, 8:49 PM
Post #24 of 71
(2870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 1717
|
miademus wrote: ...with every post i get more confused... whats the use of "R","X" rates?
Heh.
R and X are used for trad routes.
The exact meaning varies a bit by region or guidebook, but in general:
"R" denotes runout. Poor or no protection for considerable lengths of the climb.
"X" denotes death potential for the leader. No protection for long stretches of the pitch.
Like the YDS rating, very subjective.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Mar 27, 2007, 8:55 PM
Post #25 of 71
(2849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
robdotcalm wrote: In the book Rock Climbing at Vedauwoo, Wyoming, the author states, “Also, 5.9+ has tended historically to be a generic rating, often encompassing climbs harder than 5.7 but less difficult than 10d.» Does that give you a clear idea of what the rating means? Cheers, Rob.calm
Did you read that, or are you just recalling it off the top of your head? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
