|
beckerc
Apr 26, 2004, 2:43 AM
Post #26 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2003
Posts: 24
|
I haven't been climbing too long, so this is just a question. It may be completely wrong. But is it possible that some sport routes or trad routes are rated based on clips and gear placements almost as much as the actual moves? It seems like on trad especially that would have something to do with it. ???
Chuck
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Apr 26, 2004, 3:21 AM
Post #27 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*Man are you skewed on your rating style even using the "accepted" boldering/sport conversion. A 5.12a has a V1 crux? The reason it is 5.12a is because it has a 5.12a move as the crux. Endurance or length has nothing to do with the sport rating...a 15 pitch 5.9 route is still 5.9! Sport ratings use the YDS to indicate the hardest move you will encounter and have to pull through in order to finish the route. Several moves might be easier or there might be several 5.12a moves in a row...either way 5.12a is 5.12a!*
Cheiftain:
You are not thinking. There is no such thing as a "5.12a move". Sport routes are rated for both overall continuity and single move difficulty. I have done hundreds of 12c's and d's, believe me those cruxes were no harder than v3 or v4 otherwise yours truly couldn't have done them. If I can't do v5 on the ground (and I can't), then how am I gonna do it on a route?
At Smith Rocks in Oregon there is a dead vertical, 140' tall route that is no harder than v3/4 pretty much the whole way. Believe it or not this is To Bolt or Not To Be, rated 14a.
You spent too much time bouldering and not enough (any?) on climbing fundamentals, kind of like an expert miniature golfer who expects to walk out onto Spyglass Hill or Augusta and just kick ass, only to find he actually has to hit the ball longer than 20'. But instead of stepping up and working on your game, you're saying that all those par 4's and 5's are actually par 20's and 30's and all the holes need to be re-parred to match your ability.
Ditch the crash pad, bro, and hook it up man-style...if it ain't already too late.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Apr 26, 2004, 3:36 AM
Post #28 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
Uhh... I don't care who tells me it is, but V0 is not 5.10. I can campus most V0s I have run across... :? I think the people making these rating conversion charts should rethink that one.
|
|
|
|
|
ikefromla
Apr 26, 2004, 3:40 AM
Post #29 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1216
|
just in case nobody else noticed, this entire thread was absolutely pointless. Oh, and Curt is approximately 100% correct.
|
|
|
|
|
chronicle
Apr 26, 2004, 3:46 AM
Post #30 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 664
|
I think it's comparing apples to oranges. I use the scales as a reference to what I am at. So, I decide to go bouldering, I know I can flash V5, I will use the guidebook to see what problems are warm-ups, and which ones I want to work on. Same thing with trad. I'm not going to jump on a route that is rated 5.13a, when I know that I can't do it. It's all about keeping myself from getting in over my head. If you use the systems independently, then there is no controversy.
|
|
|
|
|
barefeetnochalk
Apr 26, 2004, 3:55 AM
Post #31 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2003
Posts: 63
|
You fou a v0 easy, no sh/t sherlock!
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Apr 26, 2004, 4:15 AM
Post #32 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
Routes are graded by overall difficulty, not by the hardest move.
However, for the die-hard traddies: try thinking about it rationally for a second. Which is a better system in the abstract (instead of debating which one YDS actually is)---one which grades a 5.6 approach to a V4 as the same difficulty as a route which consists of a 5.11 approach to a V4, followed by a V2 a V3, and a final V2 (without rest), or one which gives the first 5.12a and the latter 5.13a (the real ratings)?
Clearly the latter route is harder (which is why in reality it has the 13a grade)---shouldn't a decent rating system reflect that?
Kalcario's dead on about the usual difficulty of cruxes. Most 5.12a's have a V1ish crux. If it's much harder than that (like the 12a with a V4 crux mentioned above), it's probably a one move wonder and thus a shitty route.
|
|
|
|
|
reedcrr
Apr 26, 2004, 10:30 AM
Post #33 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 99
|
Ok look I might be old but I still do not get this whole idea of using the V rating system in identifying cruxes on a route.
I posted this question to get info on the rating system itself...not get blasted for my opinion on what I think the rating is! It is 2:56am where I am at right now, the reason it is so late is because I was climbing and just got back from the road.
I am sorry that I do not have the time to post over 9000 posts and form my offical opinion better, I think actual climbing is more important!
So let's try this again! Does the scale that compares the V rating to routes really work? If so how? And how can you have a route that is hard but has lower V rated cruxes in it?
Again let's go back to this example: A sport climb with 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 climbing, with a single 5.9 crux on pitch #2, continues on for 15 pitches. Does the extra pitches bump this route up to a 5.10 because of endurance requirements? Even though the next next 13 pitches do not go above 5.9 in difficulty....Do you rate the climb for the 5.9 crux or do you rate it on total feel of the climb, meaning if your tired by the time you get to pitch 15 because your out of shape and the route now feels like 5.11 do you call it 5.11? Just asking...
By the way here is an odd fact to consider...in order for someone to post around 4600 messages in 19.5 months... one would have to "average" 8 posts per day, everyday (including Christmas and Easter)! Lets just say that each post takes 3 minutes to read through the previous post and 3 minutes to rant on said topic. That would mean that this person would have wasted nearly an hour "each" day replying only to posts! Now expand that and this person has had a minimum of 485 hours since they signed up doing nothing but posting! Wow! This does not even include the time to upload images, look at other images and to read other peoples posts in order to find one to rant about! Where does such a person find the time to "climb" and post messages on this website? I think we have a couch potato or two on our hands pretending to be a climbers! I do not want ot become one of these master posters! So....
This will be my last post on this site as it is taking way too much time from my already busy schedule...and for what? To listen to people rant and spray at each other!....Meet me at the crag and we will share a bottle of wine and spray there, at least then we are near some climbing and not our computers! No hard feelings at all, spray is built in to our sport because the egos abound...yes, even mine! Yes I can be an A**hole at times but more often I am not. I will check this post randomly to see your responses but I will no longer reply. If you wish to go climbing with me (mainly sport but will trad if its the right line) in the US southwest email at reedcrr@hotmail.com and we will plan it out! If you want to bitch at me for my posts, save the email...I won't respond!
Peace!
Robert
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Apr 26, 2004, 7:49 PM
Post #34 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
In reply to: I have done hundreds of 12c's and d's
hundreds of 12c's and d's!!! add in all the a's and b's you've also no doubt ticked, and we're in the neighborhood of a thousand, perhaps?
kalcario: easily one of the most prolific 5.12 climbers in the u.s. i am truly, truly amazed. in the same league with guys who've been going at it hard on the 12's since the grade was first introduced over a quarter of a century ago. i mean, damn.
or perhaps.....more frothy joespray? nah. not possible.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Apr 26, 2004, 8:19 PM
Post #35 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*So let's try this again! Does the scale that compares the V rating to routes really work? If so how? And how can you have a route that is hard but has lower V rated cruxes in it?*
No it doesn't work for comparing routes to boulders. A scale that does work would compare the hardest moves on a route to a boulder problem, startin with 12a = v1, 13a = v5, etc. And sport routes are rated for both continuity and single moves which explains why you can (and usually do) have 12a's with v1 cruxes. Actually it would be more accurate to rate sport routes, for instance, "11b v3", the 11b being the pitch without the crux and the v3 being the crux, and in fact sport climbers commonly do refer to routes this way.
*Again let's go back to this example: A sport climb with 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 climbing, with a single 5.9 crux on pitch #2, continues on for 15 pitches. Does the extra pitches bump this route up to a 5.10 because of endurance requirements? Even though the next next 13 pitches do not go above 5.9 in difficulty....Do you rate the climb for the 5.9 crux or do you rate it on total feel of the climb, meaning if your tired by the time you get to pitch 15 because your out of shape and the route now feels like 5.11 do you call it 5.11? Just asking... *
You're saying that, since we don't rate multi-pitch routes for cumulative difficulty, why rate individual pitches that way? Because route ratings don't incorporate personal fitness levels, the climbs are rated for how hard they are in relation to each other, not how hard they are *for you*. The last pitch of Astroman is 10d regardless of whether you're minty-fresh or wasted when you get there.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Apr 26, 2004, 8:29 PM
Post #36 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
I don't know why I bother - the question will be asked again next week anyway. The bottom line (as gets mentined in about every 5th post) is that they are not comparable - end of story. But the other 80% of the thread will talk about how they should be compared. It's as if you said "I got a hole in one so I should be able to bowl a strike". Ok that's silly, how about "I can drive 300 yards so I should be able to sink most 15 foot putts",
Or (as has already been pointed out) "I can run a 60 second 400 so i should be able to run a 35 minute 10K or a 2:45 marathon" - hey that correlates pretty well to the boulder vs sport vs trad concepts. But again the bottom line is that they are different scales measuring differnt things and there is no reason for them to line up (otherwise you wouldn't need different scales - duh)
|
|
|
|
|
mungeclimber
Apr 26, 2004, 8:36 PM
Post #37 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2002
Posts: 648
|
no one gets to write about grade comparisons until they read the description of the v-system in the hueco guide, and read the description of grading in the Yosemite Free Climbs. At which point the comparisons becoming feasible without having to resort to multiple ill informed posts. Consequently if someone wants to PM me about this I'd be happy to offer up some evidence, otherwise I'm going to be pissy and go back to work.
so there
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Apr 26, 2004, 8:40 PM
Post #38 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*kalcario: easily one of the most prolific 5.12 climbers in the u.s. i am truly, truly amazed. in the same league with guys who've been going at it hard on the 12's since the grade was first introduced over a quarter of a century ago. i mean, damn.*
Uh, yeah Bob, I climb a lot. Let's say that number's around around 300 12c's and d's, the first in '91, 13 years x 365 = 4745 days divided by 300 routes = 1 12c/d every 15.8 days. One every 2 weeks - that doesn't sound super prolific to me, I know lots of guys, and you probably do to, who climb more than that. And 12c's and d's are entry-level warmups at a lot of crags I've been to, usually they're just 11b's or c's with some v3/4 thrown in. Not hard if you're in shape.
There's a Spanish guy named Andrada who did a little over 1000 routes 13b or harder in 7 years, that's one every 2.5 days for 7 years. Now that's prolific.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Apr 26, 2004, 8:43 PM
Post #39 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
I've said this before, but just to reiterate: bouldering grades are like tits on chickens. Fun to look at, but with out any real value. What means something to me is problem to problem comparison. eg if someone said Mandala was harder/easier/lamer than Midnight Lightning. That would have real value to me. Also, if someone said Scarface at Hueco Tanks was about on par with Living in Fear at Rifle, that would have value. To claim that V anything should be equivalent (even more or less) to 5 anything is to mistake one discipline for another. To be sure, going through the white water park in Green River, Wyoming is an awful lot like climbing Edward's Crack at Vedauwoo (difficulty wise), but I wouldn't grade the river 5.6+.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Apr 26, 2004, 11:09 PM
Post #40 of 63
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Let's see if I can put this another way...
I have climbed at about 10 gyms around the contry, and have noticed a rather large difference between the ratings. I have also climbed at more than 40 different areas (Trad, Sport and/or Bouldering) around the contry and have noticed a large difference between most of them also. I have noticed that the older the area, the harder the ratings, where as the newer the area the softer the ratings.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 27, 2004, 1:05 AM
Post #41 of 63
(6417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: By the way here is an odd fact to consider...in order for someone to post around 4600 messages in 19.5 months... one would have to "average" 8 posts per day, everyday (including Christmas and Easter)! Lets just say that each post takes 3 minutes to read through the previous post and 3 minutes to rant on said topic. That would mean that this person would have wasted nearly an hour "each" day replying only to posts! Now expand that and this person has had a minimum of 485 hours since they signed up doing nothing but posting! Wow! This does not even include the time to upload images, look at other images and to read other peoples posts in order to find one to rant about! Where does such a person find the time to "climb" and post messages on this website? I think we have a couch potato or two on our hands pretending to be a climbers! I do not want ot become one of these master posters! So....
Who do you suppose reedcrr is talking about?
In reply to: Yes I can be an A**hole at times.....
At least we agree on something. :D I'm sorry my reply to your comments made you all butthurt. You really don't need to pick up all your toys and go home on my account though.
Curt, couch potato pretending to be a climber. Hahahahahaha.
|
|
|
|
|
xanx
Apr 27, 2004, 1:58 AM
Post #42 of 63
(6417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 1002
|
just a quick word, i'll hold back my rant for now.
i talked to someone who had done some 5.13 trad and said there wasn't a single V8 move on it... it was basically V3 finger crack the whole way up. chances are a V8 boulderer wouldn't have the endurance (or technique) to do this, but i also doubt that someone who climbs this sort of route would be able to do a powerful V8 boulder problem.
yeah, they don't neccesarily compare. there are lots of different kinds of routes and lots of different kinds of boulder problems. i can climb about 5 or 6 V-grades harder on overhung stuff than on vertical and slabby stuff. climb whatever u enjoy and go beyond the grades. if u like it, try it.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Apr 27, 2004, 2:15 AM
Post #43 of 63
(6417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
I find the YDS vs. V scale chart (the one on this site) to be representative of a well rounded climber as was originally intended. It happens to be spot on as far as my own abilities at my best for each style. My on-sight, red point, and project levels are all comparable between bouldering and sport.
Most people tend to favor one style or the other and accordingly develop a relative imbalance in their skill levels.
|
|
|
|
|
wyattwyattwyatt
Apr 28, 2004, 3:28 PM
Post #44 of 63
(6417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 73
|
in my limited experience thus far, climbing and bouldering grades match up very well. the hardest climb i've done is 5.11 (planet of the apes - malibu), the hardest bouldering problem i've done is v2 (noone gets out alive - hueco). both were overhung and relied more on upper body strength which i'm better at. i still frequently have trouble with v1s and upper grades of 5.10 if they are a style that i'm not so good at. so the grades have matched up fairly perfectly for me so far.
i think its ridiculous to discredit a scale (as i consistently see done on these posts) because "i knew a guy who said he bouldered v4 and he had trouble on a 10c."
first of all, people are full of shit! people brag and exaggerate -- that should be no surprise. maybe that guy was just full of it to begin with.
or, more likely, he spent weeks or months working on one v4 problem, finally sent it, then proclaimed himself a v4 boulderer. so OF COURSE he can still struggle on a 10c he hasnt seen before! use your head! i've bouldered v2 (once), but i would never think that that means i can now flash anything lower than a 5.11! i'm sure there are plenty of 10bs out there or even lower that would give me all i could handle. just like (as i'm sure we all know) if u climb one 5.11 u spent months working on it certainly doesnt mean that u can now miraculously climb every 5.11 and lower in the country!
so the moral is: dont tear scales apart because of idiots' claims!
and i'm with the guy who posted earlier -- try some established v4s v5s like the ones he mentioned at jtree before u start saying that they feel like tens. i guarantee the ones he mentioned wont feel like tens......
|
|
|
|
|
cacti-tro
Deleted
Apr 29, 2004, 6:05 AM
Post #45 of 63
(6417 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: The training effect is better understood in other sports ... in running, everyone recognizes that having a fast 400m meter time doesn't predict a fast time for 5,000m. Yet you can't run a fast 5,000 unless you can run a pretty good 400 (and then do a bunch more, without much rest).
well put. i boulder V7, (13a), but i only sport 5.12c. my climbing partner boulders V6, but he sports 5.13c.... they are 2 different types of climbing. you are not suposed to climb a boulder at the same level of a sport or for that matter, the same level of a trad climb. example...i hate to trad so i dont, i can probly only trad a 5.8-9. but i train to boulder and sport climb. not trad. it is different just like running hurdles and throwing shot put are different.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Apr 29, 2004, 6:15 AM
Post #46 of 63
(6417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*i boulder V7, (13a), but i only sport 5.12c. my climbing partner boulders V6, but he sports 5.13c*
if you can boulder v7 then those 12c's should feel like warmups...
|
|
|
|
|
wyattwyattwyatt
Apr 29, 2004, 2:43 PM
Post #47 of 63
(6417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 73
|
"if you can boulder v7 then those 12c's should feel like warmups..."
somebody help me out, because i just dont understand the logic of that statement. first of all, i thought that v7 was 12d, not 13a. but regardless...are u suggesting that if i climb 10c then all 10bs will feel like warmups? thats ridiculous! first of all, the type of climb obviously has an effect on what u can or cannot do easily, ie some people are good at slab but suck at overhanging stuff. but, lets assume, for the sake of the argument, that we're talking about a hypothetical perfectly well rounded climber. fine. did u think the scales were perfect? sometimes a 10b may seem harder than a 10c. which is harder, an easy 10c or a hard 10b? it can be pretty hard to tell. so if somebody can climb at a certain level, then one letter grade lower will always feel like a warmup to him?! i dont see that.
also, lets not forget, in this PARTICULAR translation that we're talking about (translating v7 bouldering ability into a climbing level), we also have to consider that when one boulders, one is unencumbered by rope, clipping in, etc. that will have an effect also.
a drop in letter grade doesnt seem to me to be any reason to doubt whether bouldering ability translates to climbing ability.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Apr 29, 2004, 4:02 PM
Post #48 of 63
(6417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
*somebody help me out, because i just dont understand the logic of that statement. first of all, i thought that v7 was 12d, not 13a. but regardless...*
What I'm saying is you will never find anything near v7 moves on a 12c, 12c sport routes usually crux out at v2 or 3.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 29, 2004, 4:13 PM
Post #49 of 63
(6417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
You know you're fucking fucked when you start referring to problems and routes by their rating... that V4 over there, you sent that 12b? That's a cute little V2 over there. Heinous 13c!
You guys live for the ratings?
Well.... yeah!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
seafood_meowmix
Jun 26, 2004, 4:51 AM
Post #50 of 63
(6417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2003
Posts: 63
|
In reply to: rrrADAM: Thanks you make some very good points in that thread... I guess the point of me posting this is to announce BS to the current boulder gradings and to most people who point to this system and tell their freinds they can project and climb V6 when they can't even get up a 5.10+ route. To me when someone says they have sent a V6 they are telling me that they have successfully pulled through a 5.12c/d move (the hardest move in the problem). If this is so, then this accomplished climber should have very little problem with any route or problem that has a 5.10+ move as it's hardest move. For those climbers that can climb in the 5.12+ range, we are very aware that the difficulty gap between 5.10+ and 5.12+ is huge, as is the gap between 5.12+ to 5.13+. So I will call the bluff and say that the grading is not accurate and tends to not be questioned because people like to hear that they can climb harder then they actually can, it's good for the ego.
Here is what I think about the two different ratings.
They shouldn't be compared.
When any climber starts climbing, they have now idea what a 5.8 is or how hard it is. After he climbs for a while, he is able to judge (from experence) what a climb is rated and he begins to understand the rating system.
It is the same with bouldering. You don't know how the system works until you gain experience.
I don't think the V ratings are BS, I think they work differently because they are different systems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
