Forums: Climbing Information: Regional Discussions:
Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track]
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Regional Discussions

Premier Sponsor:

 


fredbob


Nov 14, 2004, 4:43 PM
Post #1 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2003
Posts: 455

Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track]  (North_America: United_States: California: Joshua_Tree_National_Park: _Joshua_Tree_National_Park_Overview_)
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

BACKGROUND:

Let me just preface this by saying, it is Sunday, the weather is simply beautiful, I just went to a 4 year old's birthday party, and I wished I was still out at Josh. So forgive the downright stupidity and triviality of this post.

It has been several weeks since the posting of a trip report which subsequently devolved into a minor "spat" regarding the actual difficulty of Clean & Jerk. http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p?t=73296&highlight= In the ensuing back and forth, Jay Tazman felt that C&J was more like 5.11- [citing the difficulty of the opening moves]. Jay also felt that this crux on C&J was comparable if not harder than the crux moves on Big Moe. I was incredulous, but it got me thinking. How do the moves on these routes compare in difficulty?

PROCEDURE:

In the subsequent weeks, I found myself at Josh a few times with no set agenda or partner, so I decided to run a few of my own "comparison tests" on these routes. Both routes were done within a short time of each other, on the same days, same shoes, etc. Sometimes I climbed C&J first, sometimes I did BM first. I've done both routes probably an equal number of times and my recent familiarity with each is about the same [meaning: beta for each route was equally well dialed.]

While certainly this is not an empirical study, there is some validity to my observations [IMO].

THE ROUTES:

Both routes are similar in steepness (maybe 5+ degrees overhanging). C&J involves overhanging face moves to a mostly hand crack. BM involves mostly overhanging face moves (some thin, some big) past 2 horizontal cracks. Both routes are somewhat continuous (5.9-5.10 the entire way; though BM is overall more difficult too). The "business" on C&J is the first 10 feet; BM's crux is about 20-25 feet up. C&J is about 65-70 feet high; BM about 55+ feet.

THE MOVES:

Clean & Jerk involves pulling up on large in cut holds (rail), grabbing another in cut rail higher (setting a foot and heel*on a large hold), locking off and making a long reach for another big hold.

Big Moe involves locking off on a sloping pinch (left hand) and small rounded crimper (right hand), then back stepping into a depression, locking off and making a long reach for a good rail.

FACTORS USED TO WEIGH DIFFICULTY:

1. Technical nature of moves.
2. Power involved in moves.
3. Pure effort [power] required.
4. Security of moves [how hard to hold on, regardless of power required].

ANALYSIS OF CRUX MOVES:

1. There is little doubt that BM has a significantly more technical crux than C&J.
2. C&J required a slight bit more continuous use of power than BM.
3. BM required a larger power burst [actual harder move requiring pulling harder] than anything on C&J.
4. BM's moves are far less secure.

CONCLUSION:

BM's crux was found to be "more difficult" based upon 3 of 4 factors analyzed. C&J was scored slightly higher on one factor [continuous].

Overall, BM was found to be measurably more difficult than C&J.

* Without use of left heel on initial hold, the crux move may seem harder.

OTHER DATA - COMPARISONS:

While I wandering about the Park on the same days, I climbed C&J and BM, I also climbed Lower Right Ski Track. In comparison to C&J, the crux of LRST was found to be more technical, similar in both power factors, and somewhat less secure. However, the crux of LRST is short and the route eases significantly after the half-way mark.

Taking all this into account, overall, C&J and LRST received a similar technical grade (10c), despite the slight differences in analysis of the crux move.

Do guide book authors go through this type of detailed analysis of every route they chronicle? Of course they do! :lol:


curt


Nov 14, 2004, 5:14 PM
Post #2 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

While I agree with your conclusions, I do have a few comments:

1) Both BM amd C&J are considerably steeper than +5 degrees beyond vertical.

2) If you "lock-off" the lower crux move on BM, you are making that crux move artificially hard. It is easier to do the "big mo" here.

3) BM also has a second crux, just past the second horizontal--unlike either of the other climbs.

Curt


fredbob


Nov 14, 2004, 5:30 PM
Post #3 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2003
Posts: 455

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [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:
While I agree with your conclusions, I do have a few comments:...

2) If you "lock-off" the lower crux move on MB, you are making that crux move artificially hard. It is easier to do the "big mo" here.

I never throw the "mo" on this route and personally don't think doing it static is any harder. But, primarily, I do the move static because it is a far more secure way of doing the route.


curt


Nov 14, 2004, 5:37 PM
Post #4 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Then Bachar should have named the route "Big Lockoff" instead. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Curt


asandh


Nov 14, 2004, 6:27 PM
Post #5 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

:)


karlbaba


Nov 14, 2004, 7:42 PM
Post #6 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Lower Right Ski Track seems like a breeze compared to the other two. 10b. I'm weak though and the Ski track seems to respond to technique.

Big Moe seems like a sandbag at 11a. If the thing had some bolts and folks regularly lead it, I bet it would be considered harder. It's got top rope rating syndrome.

Clean and Jerk, on the other hand, is pretty hard at the bottom and then gets easy. It doesn't quite have "Okelly's" syndrome (ignore the difficulty near the ground) but if those moves were at the top of the climb, they'd be worth another letter grade or two.

Peace

karl


fredbob


Nov 14, 2004, 7:47 PM
Post #7 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2003
Posts: 455

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [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:
How are you comparing these 2 climbs ? TR on both ?

All routes were soloed in order to keep conditions as identical as possible, to avoid any pump factor or other complications brought about by placing pro, and to keep same proximity in time.


asandh


Nov 14, 2004, 7:55 PM
Post #8 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 13, 2002
Posts: 788

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

:)


fredbob


Nov 14, 2004, 8:08 PM
Post #9 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2003
Posts: 455

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [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:
If this is truly research for your updated guide, wouldn't it be better to climb the routes in the manner most climbers would be doing them ? Gear placing on lead must have some impact in the rating on some climbs.

While everything stated is true (as were my impressions), it was also meant to be tongue in cheek [particularly regarding guidebook research]. This was really just to address the statement by Jay that the crux moves on C&J were as hard as the crux moves on BM [which they are not].

Come on people, get a sense of humor! :lol:


Partner michael


Nov 14, 2004, 8:18 PM
Post #10 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 204

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [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:
All routes were soloed in order to keep conditions as identical as possible, to avoid any pump factor or other complications brought about by placing pro, and to keep same proximity in time.

When I grow up, I want to be just like you. :D


curt


Nov 14, 2004, 8:21 PM
Post #11 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [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:
All routes were soloed in order to keep conditions as identical as possible, to avoid any pump factor or other complications brought about by placing pro, and to keep same proximity in time.

When I grow up, I want to be just like you. :D

You grow up? Not likely.

Curt


Partner michael


Nov 15, 2004, 8:10 PM
Post #12 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 204

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [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:
All routes were soloed in order to keep conditions as identical as possible, to avoid any pump factor or other complications brought about by placing pro, and to keep same proximity in time.

When I grow up, I want to be just like you. :D

You grow up? Not likely.

Curt

Peter Pan's got nothing on me :D


climbsomething


Nov 15, 2004, 8:21 PM
Post #13 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 8588

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Of the three, I've only attempted Big Moe. I can't get past the depression (I call it the mitten or Michigan :) ) I fall off there and can't get back on :cry: I wouldn't argue if somebody said it was a sandbag too, but I won't go into a long drawn-out debate on it ;) It's just hard for me, and I suck anyway. I am not a power climber.

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
All routes were soloed in order to keep conditions as identical as possible, to avoid any pump factor or other complications brought about by placing pro, and to keep same proximity in time.

When I grow up, I want to be just like you. :D

You grow up? Not likely.

Curt

Peter Pan's got nothing on me :D
Even your tights are better than his :lol:


fredbob


Nov 15, 2004, 8:29 PM
Post #14 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2003
Posts: 455

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [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:
When I grow up, I want to be just like you. :D

:shock: Grown up!

Getting older is hard enough without having to be reminded. :cry:


bigstiffy


Nov 16, 2004, 3:59 PM
Post #15 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 3, 2004
Posts: 19

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I personally think the upper crux of BM is harder then the lower one, but then I'm 6'3" and I just huck a teeny mo and I have the rail on the mo section. But the continued overhung nature of BM make the upper section more difficult IMO, due to the pump factor.

As for C&J, the start has been called 5.11 by so many locals over the years, so that's what I call it. Also if you don't know the critcial foot/heel move Randy was talking about, the difficultly goes up a bit. It's a classic Josh rating debate that won't go away, or at least I hope it doesn't.

Along this same train of thought, the opening moves of Leave it to Beaver (up to the ledge) have been called 11a for years too (quoting Mo, Mari, Boogs, and host of others) yet they seem much easier then the opening moves of C&J. It might be a size thing again. So go figure


jt512


Nov 16, 2004, 4:16 PM
Post #16 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [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:
If this is truly research for your updated guide, wouldn't it be better to climb the routes in the manner most climbers would be doing them ? Gear placing on lead must have some impact in the rating on some climbs.

While everything stated is true (as were my impressions), it was also meant to be tongue in cheek [particularly regarding guidebook research]. This was really just to address the statement by Jay that the crux moves on C&J were as hard as the crux moves on BM [which they are not].

Come on people, get a sense of humor! :lol:

Never admit that you were just kidding! It severely limits the catch.

-Jay


jt512


Nov 16, 2004, 4:20 PM
Post #17 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [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:
While I agree with your conclusions, I do have a few comments:...

2) If you "lock-off" the lower crux move on MB, you are making that crux move artificially hard. It is easier to do the "big mo" here.

I never throw the "mo" on this route and personally don't think doing it static is any harder. But, primarily, I do the move static because it is a far more secure way of doing the route.

My observation is that whether it is easier to do the Big Moe crux statically or dynamically is height dependent. Perhaps paradoxically, the static move seems easier if you are short, whereas the dynamic move seems easier if you are tall

-Jay


Partner michael


Nov 16, 2004, 4:21 PM
Post #18 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 204

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [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:
When I grow up, I want to be just like you. :D

:shock: Grown up!

Getting older is hard enough without having to be reminded. :cry:

pffffft. How old would you be if you didn't know your age? That's what allowed Satchel Paige to remain one of the best pitchers even in his fifties, and has got to be part of what keeps Kamps, and a handful of others going. You're still a young'un.


jt512


Nov 16, 2004, 4:24 PM
Post #19 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [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:
As for C&J, the start has been called 5.11 by so many locals over the years, so that's what I call it.

Careful. By disclosing this you risk severe repercussions from a decades-old conspiracy of sandbagging locals.

-Jay


Partner artm


Nov 16, 2004, 4:47 PM
Post #20 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 22, 2001
Posts: 17990

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [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:
As for C&J, the start has been called 5.11 by so many locals over the years, so that's what I call it.

Careful. By disclosing this you risk severe repercussions from a decades-old conspiracy of sandbagging locals.

-Jay
I picture Jay wearing a tinfoil hat as he types this.
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/...bigail_breslin10.jpg


bigstiffy


Nov 16, 2004, 9:50 PM
Post #21 of 21 (4362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 3, 2004
Posts: 19

Re: Clean & Jerk vs Big Moe [vs. Lower R. Ski Track] [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:
As for C&J, the start has been called 5.11 by so many locals over the years, so that's what I call it.

Careful. By disclosing this you risk severe repercussions from a decades-old conspiracy of sandbagging locals.

-Jay

I resemble that remark, 28 years and counting climbing at Josh


Forums : Climbing Information : Regional Discussions

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook