But if you believe your partner has taken, he hasn't necessarily, as many accidents have suggested; so a verbal confirmation from the belayer isn't a bad idea. I say "Got."

At my gym, belayers are instructed to say "Lower on" in response to "Lower." Now, that's retarded.

Jay

LOL.. actually, no. At least not to my face
Oh, wait......There's a first time for everything.


Thanks for the history lesson. I'm a little bit aware of US climbing vernacular as my first trad lead was in 1971 - using pitons for pro. And I've been pretty active since then.

We were all new climbers once. When I see someone new that might be a danger to himself or others, I prefer to offer help instead of ridicule. But, I'm not as cool as a lot of other people. After all, my first climbing partner was "Pokey"

Don't know who, but you're talking about a term that's been entrenched in US climbing vernacular for well over 25 years. It was used extensively in the Gunks and the Valley in the 80's. In the UK there's an even longer history of calling new climbers "bumblies". Since Gumby is green and someone new to an endeavor is also "green", it fits well. It was also helped by the Eddie Murphy sketches on SNL. Don't fight it. In fact, the way you worded your objections suggests that you may well be a Gumby.

Of course there are also these definitions: http://www.urbandictionary.com/...erm=gumby&page=4

http://books.google.com/...ge&q&f=false

From Wikipedia: Gumby
An inexperienced, unknowledgeable and oblivious climber; is a derogatory term. Gumbies are incapable of learning.

In the US military, specifically the Marines, the phrase "semper Gumby" is used to describe their demolition teams - meaning always flexible. It's a riff on the Marine motto semper fidelis - always faithful.

[Edit to fix botched link]

Still using pitons in '71? In Colorado we'd switched to home-made stoppers by '68.

Yeah, the lower on is a bit over the top, but I still believe the other commands are standard when teaching to new climbers, correct? Or am I missing something, you wouldnt just let go without confirmation?

"send"

and

"send it"

Curt

I think a lot of climbers were still using pins in '71.

"trad is rad"

all the variations of describing moderate nature hikes as an excuse for not wanting to try hard. exposure, mental challenge, blah blah

How about the cliche that because you climb trad, you don't want to (or are scared to) climb hard. Some of us traddies are trying harder stuff.

Josh

Agreed.

I was having a convesation with a climber here who does very routes where the gear needs to be placed. I was asking him about a route he did about 5 hours from Surabaya, and asked how difficult it was.

He answered with maybe 5.12, I was bit surprised considering I onsigthed every single pitch. (15 of them) and rated the route about 5.10d or 5.11a.

He explained that because the climber needed to place the gear, the route should be rated harder. I asked him, what would you rate the route if you were following, he said roughly 5.11b.

He didn't agree when I explained that placing or not placing the gear wasn't the determining factor in route rating, just the moves.

I was having a convesation with a climber here who does very routes where the gear needs to be placed. I was asking him about a route he did about 5 hours from Surabaya, and asked how difficult it was.

He answered with maybe 5.12, I was bit surprised considering I onsigthed every single pitch. (15 of them) and rated the route about 5.10d or 5.11a.

He explained that because the climber needed to place the gear, the route should be rated harder. I asked him, what would you rate the route if you were following, he said roughly 5.11b.

He didn't agree when I explained that placing or not placing the gear wasn't the determining factor in route rating, just the moves.

And I don't agree either.

In my guidebook to Vedauwoo, I wrote: “Hooker 10c. …. The rating takes into account the effort needed to protect the first 15 feet.”

On Mountain Project, a commentator on the route wrote,

” Heel & Toe [i.e., the guidebook] makes the comment that the 10c rating takes into account the difficulty in protecting the first 25 feet. This didn't make any sense to me until I led it.”

For another climb I rated 5.10a, I wrote, “No move is harder than 9. Protection is adequate. The rating takes into account the effort needed to set it.”

Your comment is OK for a sport climb with preplaced quick draws but does not take into account the subtleties that can arise in a traditional climb. Hanging out to place gear, and in these 2 climbs, small tricky gear, makes the climbing more difficult. Since the moves on toprope would be easier, I informed the reader of that. If the 10a in question were bolted (God forbid!), I would rate it 9.

Also, the ratings reflect what the difficulty level would be for someone climbing them for the first time and going ground up, which is the way I first climbed them. No top rope practice or anything like that.

Ratings for an area are not universal but reflect the history and traditions of the area.

Cheers,
Rob.calm

And I don't agree either.

In my guidebook to Vedauwoo, I wrote: “Hooker 10c. …. The rating takes into account the effort needed to protect the first 15 feet.”

On Mountain Project, a commentator on the route wrote,

” Heel & Toe [i.e., the guidebook] makes the comment that the 10c rating takes into account the difficulty in protecting the first 25 feet. This didn't make any sense to me until I led it.”

For another climb I rated 5.10a, I wrote, “No move is harder than 9. Protection is adequate. The rating takes into account the effort needed to set it.”

Your comment is OK for a sport climb with preplaced quick draws but does not take into account the subtleties that can arise in a traditional climb. Hanging out to place gear, and in these 2 climbs, small tricky gear, makes the climbing more difficult. Since the moves on toprope would be easier, I informed the reader of that. If the 10a in question were bolted (God forbid!), I would rate it 9.

Also, the ratings reflect what the difficulty level would be for someone climbing them for the first time and going ground up, which is the way I first climbed them. No top rope practice or anything like that.

Ratings for an area are not universal but reflect the history and traditions of the area.

Cheers,
Rob.calm

In response to Guangzhou and Blueeyed:

The essence of your arguments are given by Blueeyed’s statement

“Ratings are meant to convey free climbing ability, not protection rating. There are separate protection ratings for that …(G, PG, R, X)….”

If one took that literally, why not just rate a route by how it feels on toproping it?

This is an aside: In my guidebook, I state in the introduction that I do not use G, R, X (which works very well in many venues), because it’s pointless at Vedauwoo where the overwhelming majority of routes protect well. When routes do not protect safely, I state explicitly what the danger is, and I agree that being dangerous per se does not influence the rating.

However, I feel you are missing the distinction between a route that cannot be protected well and is inherently dangerous compared to a route that protects just fine but the time and energy required to place the protection adds to the difficulty of climbing. This is where a difference lies in grading a sport climb versus grading a traditional climb. In fact, there are some routes for which I down grade the rating because of the protection, e.g., if the hardest move is a well protected boulder problem getting off the ground, I may discount that in the rating. In rating Cat’s Cradle, 5.8+, I state that “The start of the second pitch is a well-protected 5.9 boulder problem… .”

Let me be even more adversarial: the rating should be attuned to the ability level of the climber. For example, on the 10a (Neon Madman) I mentioned earlier, the climb might appear as 5.9 to a 5.11+ leader, since they would run out a lot of it rather than place gear. It would definitely appear as 10a to a 5.9 or 10- leader who would require not just more endurance to climb the route but the need to find and hang out at stances for placing gear. and then actually placing it.

Anyway, realizing that not everyone agrees with my opinions , whenever the protection influences the rating in a significant way, I state that explicitly.

I first thought about this maybe 25 years or so ago when climbing the first pitch of Tagger at Eldorado. At that time, it had two pitons in it near the crux. I felt the climb was 5.9-. A couple of years later I climbed it after the pitons had been removed. The hanging out time for placing the gear definitely made the climb half grade harder. Clip and go is not the same as stop, get a stance, place gear and then go.

Gratias et valete bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus

Really interesting discussion! Until now, I would always have taken Guanshou's position. But I actually think rob.com is right - there are situations where the gear can change the rating. Not on most climbs, but it does occasionally happen.

For example, you may have to get into a different more strenuous position to place the one piece of gear that protects the crux than you would if you were toproping the climb. And if you then have no rest between the placement and the crux, it could easily mean a letter grade difference.

P1 of Tagger is a pretty good example, in which you have to get in a really awkward position to see into the low slot by your feet to place gear there.

Cheers,

GO

Really interesting discussion! Until now, I would always have taken Guanshou's position. But I actually think rob.com is right - there are situations where the gear can change the rating. Not on most climbs, but it does occasionally happen.

For example, you may have to get into a different more strenuous position to place the one piece of gear that protects the crux than you would if you were toproping the climb. And if you then have no rest between the placement and the crux, it could easily mean a letter grade difference.

P1 of Tagger is a pretty good example, in which you have to get in a really awkward position to see into the low slot by your feet to place gear there.

Cheers,

GO

But isn't that precisely why most people (if not all) cannot climb the same grade on trad as they can on sport? And i'm talking on-sight, not using sport tactics. Do we need to change the grades because of that? When I check out a grade, I either know that I have the physically ability to do it or it's out of my league. How would you combine both the physicality of a route and the technical in one grading system? I would think you would still have to explain it in the route description, which would eliminate the need to do it in the first place. If I look at two 10a's, how would I know one is actually a 5.9 with tricky gear at the crux. And what does tricky gear mean? Would you explain that in the description? Would that be too much beta?

It just seems way too complicated.

Josh

However, I feel you are missing the distinction between a route that cannot be protected well and is inherently dangerous compared to a route that protects just fine but the time and energy required to place the protection adds to the difficulty of climbing. This is where a difference lies in grading a sport climb versus grading a traditional climb. In fact, there are some routes for which I down grade the rating because of the protection, e.g., if the hardest move is a well protected boulder problem getting off the ground, I may discount that in the rating. In rating Cat’s Cradle, 5.8+, I state that “The start of the second pitch is a well-protected 5.9 boulder problem… .”