True. We have happily exploited this phenomenon at the Gunks before.


Well, if you read the rest of my post, I did say that 5.9-5.11 was effectively moderate for sport, and 5.8-5.10b moderate for trad, because not as many people push the grades on gear.

I guess I agree with you in respect to the fact that what is "moderate" changes somewhat from area to area, if you define "moderate" as something that the majority of climbers in the area would be able to do. But I don't think it is fair to use how many people you see on climbs of specific grades as a way to gauge what is moderate, or not.

Gunks seem to be rather skewed in this respect. I didn't find the climbs themselves to be notably more difficult at the Gunks than climbs of the same grade at the New, for example. Yet many 5.11s will be busy on any given weekend at the New.

5.10-5.11 is certainly easy-moderate at the Red, but if you go solely by how many people you can see on the climbs, the argument you use to support your claim that 5.11 is not moderate, then 5.12s and 5.13s fall into moderate category at the Red, too, because there are always people on them, it is not uncommon to wait in line for a popular 5.12/5.13 at a popular crag. Heck, even 5.14s are all busy on a good fall weekend.

I've been seeing a few different definitions of "moderate" lately. Is it "5.6 and below" or maybe in the 5.9-5.10 range?

Just curious to see what most people consider to be a moderate grade. Does it change between sport/trad? Is there such thing as moderate boulders?

You should be aspiring to NOT climb the moderates. Or did someone downgrade your project to moderate?

if 5.10 was still the hardest grade, it would save a lot of confusion

I think the term is completely useless, and should be expunged from the climber vocabulary.

It means whatever people want it to mean, so it actually conveys nothing at all. If someone says: "Tell me some moderate routes I should get on when I'm in your area" the only way I can make head or tail of the request is to find out what "moderate" means to that person. How totally and completely useless. They may as well have asked "Tell me some routes I should get on when I'm in your area."

If we stopped using that stupid term tomorrow, our language would be no poorer for the loss.

GO

One day I'll climb 5.7... one day.

I think the term is completely useless, and should be expunged from the climber vocabulary.

It means whatever people want it to mean, so it actually conveys nothing at all. If someone says: "Tell me some moderate routes I should get on when I'm in your area" the only way I can make head or tail of the request is to find out what "moderate" means to that person. How totally and completely useless. They may as well have asked "Tell me some routes I should get on when I'm in your area."

If we stopped using that stupid term tomorrow, our language would be no poorer for the loss.

GO

You think? What if someone asked you for easy routes? hard routes?

It would be the same useless question. He would have to respond with, "What is easy and hard for you?"

Josh

A climber with any whiff of knowledge about climbing would be asking for specific grades, not asking vague questions like that anyway.

So, no one here then.

Josh

A climber with any whiff of knowledge about climbing would be asking for specific grades, not asking vague questions like that anyway.

You think? What if someone asked you for easy routes? hard routes?

Where? In Massachusetts?

Yes. No one here climbs. We just drive like jerks and beat everyone else's sports teams. Although that seems to be coming to an end. Maybe I'll start climbing now and move to Texas. Any good climbing down there? If the climbing is as good as the politics, then it must be AWESOME!

Josh

Only on internets... This is what the conversation would sound like in real life:

Person 1: Hey, I'm new to the area, looking for something moderate routes to start on. Any suggestions?

Person 2: well, there is this classic 5.9 (5.7, 5.11, etc.) that everyone HAS to do if they are visiting. Totally cool climb, you should get on it.

Person 1: thanks, I'll keep it in mind. I was hoping for something in that grade range (or easier, or harder).

Person 2: Oh, in that case, you should get on...

Person 1: Hey, I'm new to the area, looking for something moderate routes to start on. Any suggestions?

Person 2: well, if you had a whiff of knowledge, you would be asking for climbs in specific grade range, not vague questions like that! Dumbass! STFU.

Like ratings, this is subjective and open to people's opinion. Some people like to seem like hardasses so they say anything under 5.12 is "moderate."

IMO, it depends on the area and the population that climbs there. For example, up at Rumney, a large collection of people can climb 5.10, so maybe moderates are 5.10a and below. At the Gunks, a much smaller population is climbing 5.10, so maybe moderates are 5.9 or 8 and below. In North Conway, an even smaller population is climbing 5.10. You see where I'm going with this?

As far as sport vs. trad goes, yes it makes a difference, because of the percentage of climbers that can climb certain grades.

Josh

I would say you have moderate footballers up there... TX is where most of the hard core players come from. Drivers in TX are probably bigger jerks too... but I have yet to drive in the NE.

Do you think this is because of the way the climbs are rated from one location to another, or because of the skill level of the climber population there?