|
Darkforrest
Feb 5, 2009, 11:06 PM
Post #1 of 83
(2624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 28, 2007
Posts: 88
|
Is it really a free solo if its a 5.0?
I had to get out and climb today and with out a partner or actually having some one to teach me roped solo I went out and free soloed a 5.0 and did a 50 ft traverse.
But can I really call it a free solo if its a 5.0?
|
|
|
|
|
epoch
Moderator
Feb 5, 2009, 11:08 PM
Post #2 of 83
(2621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
Most of us call it the approach.
|
|
|
|
|
esoteric1
Feb 5, 2009, 11:15 PM
Post #3 of 83
(2605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 705
|
call it whatever you want, but spraying on the intardnet about throwing caution to the wind and getting all bold on a 5.0 might be biting off al little more than you can chew.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 5, 2009, 11:16 PM
Post #4 of 83
(2602 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Darkforrest wrote: Is it really a free solo if its a 5.0?
Yes.
In reply to: But can I really call it a free solo if its a 5.0?
Sure, but why? Why is this important to you?
Some folks refer to easier soloing as 3rd classing - this avoids setting the perception that you are spraying over a 5.0.
You could just say you climbed the route and leave the characterizations of protection off entirely?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Feb 5, 2009, 11:18 PM
Post #5 of 83
(2594 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
I kind of find it hard to believe that a route would be rated 5.0. It seems that anything 5.3 and under would be forth class, but maybe I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 5, 2009, 11:20 PM
Post #6 of 83
(2592 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
John the distinction is whether a running belay is used, or not. If pro is used (like a fixed bolt) its automatically 5th class, regardless of the technical difficulty of the moves.
I can definitely envision a 4th class route as being far more difficult than a 5.0 - far more difficult.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Feb 5, 2009, 11:25 PM
Post #7 of 83
(2584 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
Thanks for the clarification. That explains why the Tallulah approach is harder than most 5.6s
|
|
|
|
|
Darkforrest
Feb 5, 2009, 11:43 PM
Post #8 of 83
(2541 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 28, 2007
Posts: 88
|
Its not important I was just wondering.
I was not trying to spray (I assume that's talking big about my self) that was kinda the point at 5.0 its more just a scramble that was bolted for a 5 year old to learn to lead.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 6, 2009, 12:10 AM
Post #9 of 83
(2489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Didn't think you were mate. But as others pointed out if you go around telling folks you free soloed a route and then state its 5.0?
Some people will roll their eyes at you, promise.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
charley
Feb 6, 2009, 12:14 AM
Post #10 of 83
(2477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 13, 2002
Posts: 6627
|
johnwesely wrote: I kind of find it hard to believe that a route would be rated 5.0. It seems that anything 5.3 and under would be forth class, but maybe I am wrong.
I don't lead harder than 5.4 at seneca and I have led 5.0's that I was glad to have a rope. When I'm that far off the ground on a new route, I want a rope and an occasional piece of pro. Now if you can lead 5.10's then maybe 5.3's are quite easy for you.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 6, 2009, 12:26 AM
Post #11 of 83
(2457 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
Darkforrest wrote: Is it really a free solo if its a 5.0? I had to get out and climb today and with out a partner or actually having some one to teach me roped solo I went out and free soloed a 5.0 and did a 50 ft traverse. But can I really call it a free solo if its a 5.0?
Sure why not. If bouldering can be called climbing, I don't see why 5.0 can't be called a solo.
|
|
|
|
|
clc
Feb 6, 2009, 3:09 AM
Post #12 of 83
(2367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 495
|
dingus wrote: If pro is used (like a fixed bolt) its automatically 5th class, regardless of the technical difficulty of the moves. Cheers DMT
Whoa,
I usually agree with you but, but I think you must be smoking something strong
With your logic I could "lead climb" a steep 3rd class trail by tying off trees as protection and say I was leading 5th class. No darn way that's right. your off on this one.
In the reverse logic could I solo a 5.11 route(fuck no,it just an example) and just call it 4th class because I didn't use pro.
5th class is 5th class, regardless if a rope is used.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Feb 6, 2009, 3:16 AM
Post #13 of 83
(2357 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
In reply to: I kind of find it hard to believe that a route would be rated 5.0. It seems that anything 5.3 and under would be forth class, but maybe I am wrong.
There are some VERY scary class 4s in the Sierras. They were probably graded class 4 only because the FA party didn't bring any pitons.
|
|
|
|
|
Senate156
Feb 6, 2009, 3:35 AM
Post #14 of 83
(2338 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2008
Posts: 73
|
class 4s can be savage...i'm projecting a gnarly 4.14c right now. That's right Sharma might be the king of Class 5 but when it comes to Class 4 I got it on lock.
|
|
|
|
|
seatbeltpants
Feb 6, 2009, 3:50 AM
Post #16 of 83
(2324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2008
Posts: 581
|
notapplicable wrote: If bouldering can be called climbing, I don't see why 5.0 can't be called a solo.
i lolled.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 6, 2009, 4:06 AM
Post #17 of 83
(2305 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
clc wrote: 5th class is 5th class, regardless if a rope is used.
No the line is blurred with 4th class.
The original definition of 3rd class is technical rock climbing (hands and feet) with no rope.
4th class used a rope but no intermediate protection was used.
Using that definition many of the classic high Sierra 4th class routes were done. Some of those routes have moves that miight be 5.5 or harder. Yet they're still rated 4th class to this day.
Folks who saunter up to some Sierra 4th class assuming they are significantly easier than a low 5th class, and choose to leave the rope in the car, are often for a rude awakening.
But yeah there is most often the progression you speak about with technical difficulty. But there are notable exceptions as I stated. And the notable exceptions are truer to the original definition.
Glen Dawson admited many of their 4th class routes were 5 dot something but since they had no pro they called them 4th class anyway.
Cheers
DMT
ps. course I'm smokin something, sheesh
|
|
|
|
|
epoch
Moderator
Feb 6, 2009, 4:19 AM
Post #18 of 83
(2289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
dingus wrote: clc wrote: 5th class is 5th class, regardless if a rope is used. No the line is blurred with 4th class. The original definition of 3rd class is technical rock climbing (hands and feet) with no rope. 4th class used a rope but no intermediate protection was used. Using that definition many of the classic high Sierra 4th class routes were done. Some of those routes have moves that miight be 5.5 or harder. Yet they're still rated 4th class to this day. Folks who saunter up to some Sierra 4th class assuming they are significantly easier than a low 5th class, and choose to leave the rope in the car, are often for a rude awakening. But yeah there is most often the progression you speak about with technical difficulty. But there are notable exceptions as I stated. And the notable exceptions are truer to the original definition. Glen Dawson admited many of their 4th class routes were 5 dot something but since they had no pro they called them 4th class anyway. Cheers DMT ps. course I'm smokin something, sheesh
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 6, 2009, 5:40 AM
Post #20 of 83
(2233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
seatbeltpants wrote: notapplicable wrote: If bouldering can be called climbing, I don't see why 5.0 can't be called a solo. i lolled.
|
|
|
|
|
clc
Feb 6, 2009, 7:16 AM
Post #21 of 83
(2194 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 495
|
I seem to be in partial disagreement with many of you guys(nothing new there)
The difficulty grading of a climb doesn't change depending on how your climb it. A 5.10 route doesn't become 4th just because I don't place pro. You are climbing 5th class when its harder than 4th class. In the same way that you are 4th class climbing when its 4th class rock. So if I solo a hard 5.12 route , I don't call it 3rd class.
And yes I agree that routes like the ones you guys are taking about in the sierras are graded wrong. 4th and 5th class is about the rock, Not about how you climb the rock.
Like me, I'm sure lots of guys have soloed 5.8 routes in the Alpine. Of course most of the climbing is usually easier like 3rd and 4th class, but for sure there are some pitches that would be graded 5.8 back on your local crag. I've never used a rope on 4th class rock.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Feb 6, 2009, 7:27 AM
Post #22 of 83
(2183 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
johnwesely wrote: I kind of find it hard to believe that a route would be rated 5.0. It seems that anything 5.3 and under would be forth class, but maybe I am wrong.
hmmm... Well the 5 in 5.3 stands for 5th class. So how can it be 4th class when the first part of the rating specifically designates it as 5th class? They may be 5.6 "4th class approaches" out there but just because its labeled 4th class does not mean it is 4th class. Just because you throw a Ferrari insignia on your Honda does not mean it is one, even everyone if everyone believes it is. But I guess call it what you want. More often than not "4th class" at the top of some multi-pitch route involves some easy 5th class climbing.
(This post was edited by USnavy on Feb 6, 2009, 7:40 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 6, 2009, 2:40 PM
Post #23 of 83
(2104 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
clc wrote: I seem to be in partial disagreement with many of you guys(nothing new there) The difficulty grading of a climb doesn't change depending on how your climb it.
As stated above, at the boundary of 4th/low 5th? You're wrong. But its a good discussion anyway brother.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 6, 2009, 2:45 PM
Post #24 of 83
(2099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
USnavy wrote: johnwesely wrote: I kind of find it hard to believe that a route would be rated 5.0. It seems that anything 5.3 and under would be forth class, but maybe I am wrong. hmmm... Well the 5 in 5.3 stands for 5th class. So how can it be 4th class when the first part of the rating specifically designates it as 5th class?
OK listen up because I know you have no experience with this.....
The difference between 4th and 5th class IS PROTECTION METHOD (or lack thereof). IT IS NOT NOT NOT DIFFICULTY.
Look it up if you need to. The definition of 4th class was established in the Nineteen Friggin Thirties. I'm sorry some 80 years later you don't get it but I'll restate it here for your benefit...
3rd class is technical rock climbing with no rope. Period.
4th class is technical rock climbing with a rope but no intermediate protection (running belay) was used.
5th class is where the climbing became 'so difficult' that intermediate protection was used.
Once you're into 5th class, THEN the difficulty gradings come into play. The five dot whatever DOES NOT extend down into 4th or 3rd class.
Now in practice it usually works out that yes, 4th class is easier than 5th... but not always. It depends on the FA team AND WHETHER A RUNNING BELAY WAS USED.
This is part of the world of trad. I'm sorry iuf that world doesn't fit into your preconceived notions, but that's just how it is.
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Feb 6, 2009, 2:46 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
keinangst
Feb 6, 2009, 2:45 PM
Post #25 of 83
(2096 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 1408
|
onceahardman wrote: There are some VERY scary class 4s in the Sierras. They were probably graded class 4 only because the FA party didn't bring any pitons.
The more times I read this, the more hilarious the scenario becomes. I can just see two guys trying to be macho about it after leaving the gear in the car.
(This post was edited by keinangst on Feb 6, 2009, 2:46 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
