|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 23, 2011, 10:22 PM
Post #201 of 225
(7543 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
kennoyce wrote: jt512 wrote: Quote: Sport climbing takes less skill than crack climbing, Baloney. Sport climbing does not require less skill than crack climbing, though it does require fewer skills. In sport climbing you don't need to know how to place gear, route find, self-rescue, find the descent, keep your head together on a runout, etc. But it doesn't take less skill. In sport climbing, the moves are harder and, contrary to what you've said below, less intuitive. Quote: Its more intuitive to pull down on a hold, hand jamming takes pratice and is not at "easy". Your vision of what sport climbing entails is too limited. There is a hell of a lot more to it than "pulling down on holds." As an example, look at the first hard move on Hellraiser (5.12c) at Williamson Rock in SoCal. It goes something like this: From a right-hand gaston and a left-hand side-pull, stretch far out left with the left foot. Push with the right hand and pull with the left foot to rock over onto the left foot, while simultaneously bringing the right foot up into a high backstep and reaching with the left hand for a distant gaston. This puts you in a double-gaston-iron-cross-high-backstep. From this "intuitive" position, cross the right hand over the left, let the feet kick loose, reposition the feet on higher holds to the left, and deadpoint with the left hand to a jug. I have found that most people fail to find this move intuitive. In contrast, the "sequence" up a crack is no secret. -Jay [ This Message was edited by: jt512 on 2002-12-13 11:14 ] Thanks for blowing the onsight for me Jay[;)]
Actually, the idea that crack climbing is simpler is baloney. There are exceptions that are mostly about efficiency and endurance, but most hard crack climbs I've been on (mid 11 and up) require extremely subtle and tricky sequence, body positions, and "feel" for the crack. Even some relatively easy climbs can spit out strong climbers with decent crack technique if they don't have a good feel for it.
Here's an example: Quivering Quill 5.10c is a slightly overhanging hand and finger sized crack. It pods out near the top. I did it a few months ago, so I probably don't have it exactly right, but the sequence as I remember it goes something like this: A very high right foot on a face hold, a sloping gaston left hand, while you simultaneously transition a hand jam into an undercling, get a left foot into a pod, move the left hand into a chicken wing, which allows you to arm bar with the right. This allows you to get your left leg into the big crack at your chest. Now you're secure, and a series of arm bars and chicken wings gets your upper body up over your leg.
That's what it takes to move up 3 feet. On a 10c. It's as complex, albeit much easier physically, as the crux moves on some 12c sport routes I've done.
As for this trad climbers need more balls, sport climbers are stronger nonsense - that's really all it is. Both disciplines have a mix of weak wankers and people who are really dedicated and consistently push their limits. Most of us (myself included) fall in the middle somewhere, with moments that approach greatness, but generally dwelling in mediocrity. Whether we climb sport or trad has nothing to do with it.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
wmfork
May 23, 2011, 11:21 PM
Post #202 of 225
(7529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Posts: 348
|
cracklover wrote: Actually, the idea that crack climbing is simpler is baloney. There are exceptions
cracklover wrote: Here's an example: Quivering Quill 5.10c is a slightly overhanging hand and finger sized crack. It pods out near the top. |
|
|
|
|
essay
May 24, 2011, 1:55 AM
Post #203 of 225
(7497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2011
Posts: 99
|
Trad climbers are just jealous that they missed out on the evolution of climbing and are still draging around 100 pound packs in addition to the monkey on their backs.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
May 24, 2011, 11:14 AM
Post #204 of 225
(7470 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
wmfork wrote: cracklover wrote: Actually, the idea that crack climbing is simpler is baloney. There are exceptions I think Jay disagreed that sport climbing is simpler than crack climbing, that doesn't mean he said crack climbing is simpler. On the other hand, I believe Steve Hong (FAed a bunch of hard (as in 5.13 hard, not 5.11 hard) cracks and sport routes up to mid 5.14) was quoted in an interview saying that he had to develope far more techniques/trickeries sport climbing than crack climbing. Anybody know the source? If not, I'll try to distract him w/ a young hottie next time I see him at the gym and get an answer .
Can't remember the source for Hong's statement, and I've never read it originally, but it has been paraphrased dozens of times on this site. I think that when you compare the hard sport climbs that hong was putting up (beta intricate routes at Rifle) with his hard crack climbs (repetitive enduro lines at the Creek), it definitely makes sense. However, you could just as easily compare a complex, facey trad line at the Gunks to an enduro sport line at the Red River Gorge, and come to the conclusion that sport is was simpler than trad.
At this point in the game, it is clear that beginning sport and trad lines can require substantially different techniques. However, moving up in the grades, the harder you get, the more similar sport and trad become in terms of movement. The logical conclusion would be something like Cobra Crack, which Trotter once said would best be climbed by a 5.14 sport climber who takes 6 months to learn crack technique.
****
p.s. I just read the old, nearly 10-year old at to this thread, and was kind of amused and embarrassed at my old "trad is rad" responses. heh.
|
|
|
|
|
ceebo
May 24, 2011, 12:55 PM
Post #205 of 225
(7462 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2009
Posts: 862
|
In reply to: So I'm wrong because I asked you to clarify your statement. Did I word the questions wrong? Do you not like answering them? Oh and by the way, you're absolutely right. I'm sure Leo Holding pretty much always top ropes every route he attempts, especially 16 pitches up. Good example. One more minor thing... "From around E5 onward (getting into 5.12 and up kinda climbing) that is where falls have far greater chance of resulting in injury and death even if things are done right." and then, almost in the next breath you state: "Do a vote if you want, i bet you my house most people on this site and world wide do not climb at such a level where the route can not protect properly against a serious fall." So umm... which is it? And how big is your house?
It is both. first is the danger, second is the hesitation. As for the conclusion, ''most'' trad climbers have no balls. You at some point attempted to tell me why they do?. Just seems you acting dumb and blaming it on my posting format to hide the fact you got nothing to prove otherwise?.
As for the leo thing, don't use climbs besides the point. The climb i was talking about was top roped first. The 16 pitch your talking about has nothing at all to do with that fact.
(This post was edited by ceebo on May 24, 2011, 1:03 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 24, 2011, 4:17 PM
Post #206 of 225
(7429 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
wmfork wrote: cracklover wrote: Actually, the idea that crack climbing is simpler is baloney. There are exceptions I think Jay disagreed that sport climbing is simpler than crack climbing, that doesn't mean he said crack climbing is simpler.
Fair enough.
In reply to: cracklover wrote: Here's an example: Quivering Quill 5.10c is a slightly overhanging hand and finger sized crack. It pods out near the top. So would that be an exception? Sounds like it just required some OW techniques and (gasp!) some face climbing techniques.
No, IME, it's the sustained splitter cracks of the Creek that are the exception. Most crack climbs are more, for lack of a better word, shifty. The thing that makes for the most intricate movements in crack climbs are changes in crack size, direction/angle, offset, steepness, and other things going on around the crack. It's when one or multiple of these things change mid climb that you need to get very creative sometimes.
camhead wrote: wmfork wrote: cracklover wrote: Actually, the idea that crack climbing is simpler is baloney. There are exceptions I think Jay disagreed that sport climbing is simpler than crack climbing, that doesn't mean he said crack climbing is simpler. On the other hand, I believe Steve Hong (FAed a bunch of hard (as in 5.13 hard, not 5.11 hard) cracks and sport routes up to mid 5.14) was quoted in an interview saying that he had to develope far more techniques/trickeries sport climbing than crack climbing. Anybody know the source? If not, I'll try to distract him w/ a young hottie next time I see him at the gym and get an answer . Can't remember the source for Hong's statement, and I've never read it originally, but it has been paraphrased dozens of times on this site. I think that when you compare the hard sport climbs that hong was putting up (beta intricate routes at Rifle) with his hard crack climbs (repetitive enduro lines at the Creek), it definitely makes sense. However, you could just as easily compare a complex, facey trad line at the Gunks to an enduro sport line at the Red River Gorge, and come to the conclusion that sport is was simpler than trad.
That's an interesting point. I have no experience with 5.14 of any kind, and only very limited experience with 5.13- crack and sport, so I'll leave it to others to determine what it's like in those ranges. All I'll say is that in crack climbing, just as in sport, I've seen some people do amazing things with finesse, sequence, and technique, while other folks need far more power/endurance to get through the same climb.
camhead wrote: However, moving up in the grades, the harder you get, the more similar sport and trad become in terms of movement. The logical conclusion would be something like Cobra Crack, which Trotter once said would best be climbed by a 5.14 sport climber who takes 6 months to learn crack technique.
I'm not convinced that a 5.14 sport climber who has spent a lifetime building up a repertoire of skills and abilities on face climbing could replicate all of that learning in crack climbing in six months. Sure, if they focused on one single climb, like Cobra crack, they could possibly do it. But to be able to consistently climb at the same level on a variety of crack sizes? I just don't buy that there is enough transference of skill, and I think the new skill-set that would have to be developed is pretty sizable.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
wmfork
May 24, 2011, 5:14 PM
Post #207 of 225
(7411 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Posts: 348
|
cracklover wrote: No, IME, it's the sustained splitter cracks of the Creek that are the exception.
Well, IME, it's the splitter cracks (with little or no offset) of the Creek that sport climbers have absolutely the worst time on.
cracklover wrote: Most crack climbs are more, for lack of a better word, shifty. The thing that makes for the most intricate movements in crack climbs are changes in crack size, direction/angle, offset, steepness, and other things going on around the crack.
Like Ruby's Cafe (besides big changes in crack size)? Almost all the strong sport climbers make that their first 13 at the creek even though many would have hard time on a mid 12 splitter (kind of like how I was able to do ok on the "crux" pitch of moonlight but almost cried on the 20 ft of ringlock on pitch 9).
I'm not trying to argue whether crack climbing is easier or harder, but for good sport climbers transitioning into crack climbing, it is the subtlety of pure friction jam that they have the most problem with (and personally, the part of my skill that really deteriorates the longer I've been away from the creek). Any face feature or crack constriction tips it to their favor; wild body positions are nothing new to them. And if they can lay back a crack, well, it's impressive how hard some can lay back a crack.
|
|
|
|
|
superchuffer
May 24, 2011, 6:14 PM
Post #208 of 225
(7394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2011
Posts: 294
|
In reply to: And when you stop sight-seeing, and learn to pull a hard move, I'll be impressed. Falling on 10b, that's just so adorable!
In reply to: Perhaps you'd have been more satisfied if you were actually able to send something.
In reply to: "Cool" is in the eye of the beholder. Your "cool" climbs would likely bore me.
In reply to: Well, you get my vote for the most judgmental user on the site. Jay
And well, you get mine Jay.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 24, 2011, 6:41 PM
Post #209 of 225
(7388 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
wmfork wrote: cracklover wrote: No, IME, it's the sustained splitter cracks of the Creek that are the exception. Well, IME, it's the splitter cracks (with little or no offset) of the Creek that sport climbers have absolutely the worst time on.
Sure, if you take a strong climber who doesn't know the first thing about jamming and put him on a splitter, he'll flail more than something he can work around. But I'm not talking about cracks in corners or with big offsets the sport climber can layback. I'm talking about the crack that jogs right or left, pods out, flares and shifts size. And I'm not talking about sport climbers with little to no crack technique. I'm talking about people with a decent basic understanding of most crack techniques, and how that just doesn't cut it when the going gets a little weird.
In reply to: cracklover wrote: Most crack climbs are more, for lack of a better word, shifty. The thing that makes for the most intricate movements in crack climbs are changes in crack size, direction/angle, offset, steepness, and other things going on around the crack. Like Ruby's Cafe (besides big changes in crack size)? Almost all the strong sport climbers make that their first 13 at the creek even though many would have hard time on a mid 12 splitter (kind of like how I was able to do ok on the "crux" pitch of moonlight but almost cried on the 20 ft of ringlock on pitch 9).
I haven't been on either of those, so I won't comment. But honestly, I could take a solid 5.13 sport climber who has awesome endurance and teach him in 30 minutes how to climb 20 feet of ringlocks like it was nothing. It's a painful but simple technique, and the main problem is you get very little for your feet. But with enough power and endurance, s/he would cruise it no problem.
In reply to: I'm not trying to argue whether crack climbing is easier or harder, but for good sport climbers transitioning into crack climbing, it is the subtlety of pure friction jam that they have the most problem with (and personally, the part of my skill that really deteriorates the longer I've been away from the creek). Any face feature or crack constriction tips it to their favor; wild body positions are nothing new to them. And if they can lay back a crack, well, it's impressive how hard some can lay back a crack.
Yes, I've seen a 13- sport climber with little crack technique layback all the way up Three Strikes You're Out.
But there are plenty of pure cracks that are not like the pure splitters, dihedrals, and offsets you see in the creek. Typically in poorer desert rock, but you see them in good granite too. When the crack flares, veers to the left, and pods out, you better know what you're doing, or you're going for a ride.
GO
(This post was edited by cracklover on May 24, 2011, 6:43 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
May 24, 2011, 6:49 PM
Post #210 of 225
(7377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
cracklover wrote: I'm not convinced that a 5.14 sport climber who has spent a lifetime building up a repertoire of skills and abilities on face climbing could replicate all of that learning in crack climbing in six months. Sure, if they focused on one single climb, like Cobra crack, they could possibly do it. But to be able to consistently climb at the same level on a variety of crack sizes? I just don't buy that there is enough transference of skill, and I think the new skill-set that would have to be developed is pretty sizable. GO
isn't that the story of the Hubers, right before they showed up in Yosemite, learned to crack climb, and then freed El Cap?
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 24, 2011, 6:58 PM
Post #211 of 225
(7371 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
caughtinside wrote: cracklover wrote: I'm not convinced that a 5.14 sport climber who has spent a lifetime building up a repertoire of skills and abilities on face climbing could replicate all of that learning in crack climbing in six months. Sure, if they focused on one single climb, like Cobra crack, they could possibly do it. But to be able to consistently climb at the same level on a variety of crack sizes? I just don't buy that there is enough transference of skill, and I think the new skill-set that would have to be developed is pretty sizable. GO isn't that the story of the Hubers, right before they showed up in Yosemite, learned to crack climb, and then freed El Cap?
Is it? I've no idea. But if so, then at least in some cases, I guess I'm totally wrong on that front.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
wmfork
May 24, 2011, 8:03 PM
Post #212 of 225
(7356 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Posts: 348
|
cracklover wrote: I haven't been on either of those, so I won't comment. But honestly, I could take a solid 5.13 sport climber who has awesome endurance and teach him in 30 minutes how to climb 20 feet of ringlocks like it was nothing. It's a painful but simple technique, and the main problem is you get very little for your feet. But with enough power and endurance, s/he would cruise it no problem.
cracklover wrote: Yes, I've seen a 13- sport climber with little crack technique layback all the way up Three Strikes You're Out. |
|
|
|
|
saint_john
May 24, 2011, 8:25 PM
Post #213 of 225
(7344 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494
|
jjones16 wrote: The reason is very simple. Trad climbers have more balls.
and highball boulders have more balls than trad climbers. and free soloists have more balls than highball boulders. and free sky divers have more balls than free soloists. but they don't brag much.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
May 24, 2011, 8:54 PM
Post #214 of 225
(7331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
cracklover wrote: caughtinside wrote: cracklover wrote: Is it? I've no idea. But if so, then at least in some cases, I guess I'm totally wrong on that front. GO
Why do you think the military gives "nicknames" to their enemies? Because once something is labeled, it is easy to demonize it. "No I am not talking about you Johnny, it's those Sport Climbers I am talking about!"
If everyone realized that Chuck Palahniuk got it right when he wrote, "You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else, and we are all part of the same compost pile." There would be a lot less conflict in this world.
Until then, just keep choosing your side and talking crap about others. It may make you feel better about yourself.
(This post was edited by roughster on May 24, 2011, 8:55 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 24, 2011, 9:06 PM
Post #215 of 225
(7324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
wmfork wrote: cracklover wrote: I haven't been on either of those, so I won't comment. But honestly, I could take a solid 5.13 sport climber who has awesome endurance and teach him in 30 minutes how to climb 20 feet of ringlocks like it was nothing. It's a painful but simple technique, and the main problem is you get very little for your feet. But with enough power and endurance, s/he would cruise it no problem. Not trying to be rude, but you don't know what you are talking about. Sure, the basic ideas of crack climbing is pretty simple, but absolutely in no way does the send come down to power and endurance. A good crack climber can make the moves much more secure and efficient, even though (s)he may seemingly be doing the exact thing.
Well, I was being a little facetious about the 30 minutes thing. And you're right, it can take a lot of time to get the subtleties of a simple technique. But that's really not what I was talking about at all. I was referring to crack climbs where simply having the techniques down ain't good enough to cut it. Routes that need creative/inobvious sequences/body positions.
In reply to: I'd love to just spend 30 minutes on ringlock and be able to do Optimator, but even at my best, I flailed miserably on it.
Well I did say a solid 5.13 sport climber with a lot of power and endurance. Your profile says you climb 5.1. So there's your problem. ;)
In reply to: cracklover wrote: Yes, I've seen a 13- sport climber with little crack technique layback all the way up Three Strikes You're Out. I didn't witness it, but I was talking about liebacking (almost) perfect splitter tight ringlock crack, not a desert corner, which is ghey.
You mean something like Coyne? Actually, it's not that uncommon for people to layback the first 20 feet. Trouble is that makes it so hard to get back into line with the crack.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 24, 2011, 9:11 PM
Post #216 of 225
(7321 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
roughster wrote: cracklover wrote: caughtinside wrote: cracklover wrote: Is it? I've no idea. But if so, then at least in some cases, I guess I'm totally wrong on that front. GO Not just on that front. Anyways... Why do you think the military gives "nicknames" to their enemies? Because once something is labeled, it is easy to demonize it. "No I am not talking about you Johnny, it's those Sport Climbers I am talking about!" If everyone realized that Chuck Palahniuk got it right when he wrote, "You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else, and we are all part of the same compost pile." There would be a lot less conflict in this world. Until then, just keep choosing your side and talking crap about others. It may make you feel better about yourself.
Wow, who pissed in your cheerios?
WTF are you talking about? I haven't talked crap about anyone. I'm not choosing a side, I climb both sport and trad, and love both. And if you have a problem with something I've said, put up or shut up. Point out my error and tell me what's wrong with it in your not so humble opinion rather than implying I'm wrong about some vast range of stuff.
Or maybe you're just confused, I dunno.
GO
(This post was edited by cracklover on May 24, 2011, 9:12 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
wmfork
May 24, 2011, 9:24 PM
Post #217 of 225
(7312 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Posts: 348
|
cracklover wrote: You mean something like Coyne? Actually, it's not that uncommon for people to layback the first 20 feet. Trouble is that makes it so hard to get back into line with the crack. |
|
|
|
|
cracklover
May 24, 2011, 9:39 PM
Post #218 of 225
(7307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
wmfork wrote: cracklover wrote: You mean something like Coyne? Actually, it's not that uncommon for people to layback the first 20 feet. Trouble is that makes it so hard to get back into line with the crack. It was the same 5.12 section on moonlight that I was describing earlier. Unlike the crux finger lieback, this was pure friction jam, without the help of pin scars. I really wished I could have seen the frenchies lieback it (on lead no less), John told me they made it look like a 5.14 (and apparently the leader sent it) and was amused to see him jam thru it with a lot less effort.
That is impressive, in a nutty kind of way. The other problem with laybacking a crack like that is that you can't see your gear. Friend of mine saw some Euro layback the first 35(!) feet of Coyne, try to get back into line, fall, and rip all the gear that he'd placed blind.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
May 30, 2011, 8:27 PM
Post #219 of 225
(7187 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
cracklover wrote: But there are plenty of pure cracks that are not like the pure splitters, dihedrals, and offsets you see in the creek. Typically in poorer desert rock, but you see them in good granite too. When the crack flares, veers to the left, and pods out, you better know what you're doing, or you're going for a ride. GO
I think the critical evolution of the crack climber is when they stop seeking out just the shear jamming challenge for actual climbing difficulty. Sure, a 3/4" crack splitting an utterly flawless plane is hard, but the last 10 feet don't require any different moves from the first 10 feet. Make that face uneven though, throw in some flares and pods, that makes the climb harder, more interesting, and more attractive to the more mature climber. I actually suck at pure splitters because I'm so used to seeking out the little inconsistencies that make a bad size go. But then again, I'm not much of a technical sport climber either.
|
|
|
|
|
rangerrob
Jun 6, 2011, 3:56 PM
Post #220 of 225
(7100 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2003
Posts: 641
|
I can't believe 9 pages have been devoted this conversation. If you call yourself a climber you should know why sport weenies get dissed so much. If it has to be explained to you then you haven't really climbed in both disciplines enough.
RR
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jun 6, 2011, 4:52 PM
Post #221 of 225
(7084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
cracklover wrote: wmfork wrote: cracklover wrote: You mean something like Coyne? Actually, it's not that uncommon for people to layback the first 20 feet. Trouble is that makes it so hard to get back into line with the crack. It was the same 5.12 section on moonlight that I was describing earlier. Unlike the crux finger lieback, this was pure friction jam, without the help of pin scars. I really wished I could have seen the frenchies lieback it (on lead no less), John told me they made it look like a 5.14 (and apparently the leader sent it) and was amused to see him jam thru it with a lot less effort. That is impressive, in a nutty kind of way. The other problem with laybacking a crack like that is that you can't see your gear. Friend of mine saw some Euro layback the first 35(!) feet of Coyne, try to get back into line, fall, and rip all the gear that he'd placed blind. GO
I laid back the start of coyne and had my belayer eyeball the gear for me. Slammer greens.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jun 6, 2011, 5:07 PM
Post #222 of 225
(7077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
caughtinside wrote: cracklover wrote: wmfork wrote: cracklover wrote: You mean something like Coyne? Actually, it's not that uncommon for people to layback the first 20 feet. Trouble is that makes it so hard to get back into line with the crack. It was the same 5.12 section on moonlight that I was describing earlier. Unlike the crux finger lieback, this was pure friction jam, without the help of pin scars. I really wished I could have seen the frenchies lieback it (on lead no less), John told me they made it look like a 5.14 (and apparently the leader sent it) and was amused to see him jam thru it with a lot less effort. That is impressive, in a nutty kind of way. The other problem with laybacking a crack like that is that you can't see your gear. Friend of mine saw some Euro layback the first 35(!) feet of Coyne, try to get back into line, fall, and rip all the gear that he'd placed blind. GO I laid back the start of coyne and had my belayer eyeball the gear for me. Slammer greens.
Ha! Now that's climbing as a team!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Jun 6, 2011, 5:26 PM
Post #223 of 225
(7071 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
cracklover wrote: caughtinside wrote: cracklover wrote: wmfork wrote: cracklover wrote: You mean something like Coyne? Actually, it's not that uncommon for people to layback the first 20 feet. Trouble is that makes it so hard to get back into line with the crack. It was the same 5.12 section on moonlight that I was describing earlier. Unlike the crux finger lieback, this was pure friction jam, without the help of pin scars. I really wished I could have seen the frenchies lieback it (on lead no less), John told me they made it look like a 5.14 (and apparently the leader sent it) and was amused to see him jam thru it with a lot less effort. That is impressive, in a nutty kind of way. The other problem with laybacking a crack like that is that you can't see your gear. Friend of mine saw some Euro layback the first 35(!) feet of Coyne, try to get back into line, fall, and rip all the gear that he'd placed blind. GO I laid back the start of coyne and had my belayer eyeball the gear for me. Slammer greens. Ha! Now that's climbing as a team! GO
In actuality it was a failed attempt at killing him.
|
|
|
|
|
killingmorethancancer
Jun 16, 2011, 2:13 PM
Post #224 of 225
(6907 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 24, 2010
Posts: 61
|
Head to Indian Creek and start bolting. Let me know how that goes for you.
|
|
|
|
|
taydude
Jun 16, 2011, 3:37 PM
Post #225 of 225
(6141 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2006
Posts: 531
|
It's pretty funny when you see these fat noob trad climbers spouting off about how trad is so superior to sport and bouldering while they're dragging their ass up a 5.6 with a full set of hexes and big bros. I think trad CAN be more ballsy and hard at the higher levels but I'm not going to go around bragging that i just climbed a 5.9 on trad.
disclaimer: I think all climbing at the high end requires a certain amount of testicular fortitude. Whether some crazy trad route with micro nuts or a sport route so hard you have to skip 2 bolts and take 50ft whippers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
