I'm a 5.x Climber!
It seems like this whole discussion is circling around the fundamental problem of a single linear, numeric difficulty scale. People have proposed all sorts of alternatives (like the O scale you're talking about). SCIN's got one good approach to say that if you can't climb 5.x OW, face, tips, overhang, slab, etc. then you aren't really a 5.x climber, in his opinion. That demands a very rounded set of strengths and skills, and for people who enjoy that, it's great.
At the same time, there are people who really enjoy one type of climbing. I was blown away by a Czech woman who flew up stuff at the Gallery at Red Rocks, but simply wouldn't pull up onto the slabs above to get to the anchors. She would lower off the last bolt below the slab and let her husband struggle up to finish and clean the routes (nice guy!). In a certain way, she's a 5.12 climber, even if she can't (won't?) do 5.8 slab moves. She sure isn't well rounded, but she was damn strong on crimpy overhanging stuff. That's what she liked doing, and that's good for her.
Back to the limitations of the grading systems. The duh example is 'reachy crux' routes. Too short to reach that next hold? It's much harder than the number would make it seem. Another example is what I've heard about Indian Creek climbs. There could be a route that is 'officially' 5.11a, but if your hands are too big or too small, it becomes more like 5.11d. What does the number in the guidebook tell you about how good a climber you are?
It seems like there are certain types of climbing where certain people aren't 'built' for it. For some people, they really enjoy the challenge of overcomming that. There could be some fat-fingered guy who loves beating himself up on 5.8 tips cracks just for the perverse challenge. Good for him. Maybe that makes him 'only' a 5.8 climber. Maybe it doesn't matter that he's a 5.x climber because it doesn't tell you wether he's having fun or not!
On the other hand, SCIN's approach is useful, particularly for the traveling climber. If you know you can do 5.7 ANYTHING, then you can be pretty confident getting on some long, remote, only-way-off-is-the-top, "topo? what topo?" 5.7 routes.
At the same time, there are people who really enjoy one type of climbing. I was blown away by a Czech woman who flew up stuff at the Gallery at Red Rocks, but simply wouldn't pull up onto the slabs above to get to the anchors. She would lower off the last bolt below the slab and let her husband struggle up to finish and clean the routes (nice guy!). In a certain way, she's a 5.12 climber, even if she can't (won't?) do 5.8 slab moves. She sure isn't well rounded, but she was damn strong on crimpy overhanging stuff. That's what she liked doing, and that's good for her.
Back to the limitations of the grading systems. The duh example is 'reachy crux' routes. Too short to reach that next hold? It's much harder than the number would make it seem. Another example is what I've heard about Indian Creek climbs. There could be a route that is 'officially' 5.11a, but if your hands are too big or too small, it becomes more like 5.11d. What does the number in the guidebook tell you about how good a climber you are?
It seems like there are certain types of climbing where certain people aren't 'built' for it. For some people, they really enjoy the challenge of overcomming that. There could be some fat-fingered guy who loves beating himself up on 5.8 tips cracks just for the perverse challenge. Good for him. Maybe that makes him 'only' a 5.8 climber. Maybe it doesn't matter that he's a 5.x climber because it doesn't tell you wether he's having fun or not!
On the other hand, SCIN's approach is useful, particularly for the traveling climber. If you know you can do 5.7 ANYTHING, then you can be pretty confident getting on some long, remote, only-way-off-is-the-top, "topo? what topo?" 5.7 routes.
I like what you said, tom.
And another thing I was thinking of...
I think the whole "I'm a 5.x climber" statement should only be meant in terms of: If you go to a new climbing area, where you are unfamiliar with the routes and rock type, then what grade of routes will you comfortably get on? *That* number is what grade of climber you are, not the grade that you like to spray to your friends.
And another thing I was thinking of...
I think the whole "I'm a 5.x climber" statement should only be meant in terms of: If you go to a new climbing area, where you are unfamiliar with the routes and rock type, then what grade of routes will you comfortably get on? *That* number is what grade of climber you are, not the grade that you like to spray to your friends.
Does he have a strange bear claw like appendage protruding from his neck? He kep petting it.
Well said Tom.
One more thing...
My opinions really shouldn't piss anyone off unless they really truly care what I think of them. I really don't think Graham would give a shit if I told him that he wasn't a 5.14 climber. He would probably laugh his ass off.
I'm not stupid though. I know the guy is a bad ass. I know he's a 5.14 sport climber. I know he could probably take a rack and hike any of my projects with an hours worth of cam placement training.
It's just that I'm going to try and go through life without separating trad from sport. People have argued that the whole "trad versus sport" discussion should never be brought up again on this or any other board. Hell, I used to start them all about five years ago when I was so freakin' closed minded. Well, over a year ago I decided to take the big step and merge the two into what they really are..... just plain old rock climbin'.
Ironically the same people who would get all hyped up if a "trad versus sport" discussion started again just can't handle the implications that come with merging the two into one sport. The implications in this case being not able to spray about being a 5.x climber at Miguel's. They may just have to say they're a 5.X-1 climber. They wouldn't sound so cool at the crag.
I remember one day at Miguel's when my friend was showing off a bit. He was cranking off pinch pullups on the 2X4's. Some dude looked at him and said "Damn! How hard do you climb!?" My friend looked at the kid and said "5.11" then walked away. 5.11 didn't sound too impressive to the kid but little did he know my friend was talking about 5.11 *everything* (including onsights of climbs like Inhibitor, Burden of Dreams and Afterburner). My friend had enough confidence in himself to be able to tell this kid he was only a 5.11 climber because being a 5.11 all around climber is pretty damn cool.
So, think back to the times you've argued that there shouldn't be a separation between trad and sport. Then ask yourself if you've got the pride to say you're just a 5.10 climber instead of a 5.12 climber and still feel confident that you can pull down.
One more thing...
My opinions really shouldn't piss anyone off unless they really truly care what I think of them. I really don't think Graham would give a shit if I told him that he wasn't a 5.14 climber. He would probably laugh his ass off.
I'm not stupid though. I know the guy is a bad ass. I know he's a 5.14 sport climber. I know he could probably take a rack and hike any of my projects with an hours worth of cam placement training.
It's just that I'm going to try and go through life without separating trad from sport. People have argued that the whole "trad versus sport" discussion should never be brought up again on this or any other board. Hell, I used to start them all about five years ago when I was so freakin' closed minded. Well, over a year ago I decided to take the big step and merge the two into what they really are..... just plain old rock climbin'.
Ironically the same people who would get all hyped up if a "trad versus sport" discussion started again just can't handle the implications that come with merging the two into one sport. The implications in this case being not able to spray about being a 5.x climber at Miguel's. They may just have to say they're a 5.X-1 climber. They wouldn't sound so cool at the crag.
I remember one day at Miguel's when my friend was showing off a bit. He was cranking off pinch pullups on the 2X4's. Some dude looked at him and said "Damn! How hard do you climb!?" My friend looked at the kid and said "5.11" then walked away. 5.11 didn't sound too impressive to the kid but little did he know my friend was talking about 5.11 *everything* (including onsights of climbs like Inhibitor, Burden of Dreams and Afterburner). My friend had enough confidence in himself to be able to tell this kid he was only a 5.11 climber because being a 5.11 all around climber is pretty damn cool.
So, think back to the times you've argued that there shouldn't be a separation between trad and sport. Then ask yourself if you've got the pride to say you're just a 5.10 climber instead of a 5.12 climber and still feel confident that you can pull down.
Yo Ray jack dynomite! Listen to my beat box! Bew ch ch pff BEW ch ch pfff! Sweet!
-Horatio
-Horatio
For all this "I'm a 5.x climber" thing, it doesn't take into account old-school sandbagged grading. I'd invite any "5.11" trad climber to head to Devil's Lake and get on a mid 10. Then lower off from where you popped out of that glassy, parallel sided crack and try it again. (assuming that your cam held in that same glassy, parallel sided crack ....) Part of Devil's Lake grading is the 'unique' rock, but part of it is that the folks who developed the area just flat out sandbagged the ratings. Some of the routes are only slightly sandbagged, but some of them are just ridiculous. Climbing there usually puts a dent in one's "I'm a 5.x climber" thing.
What we really need is a numeric grading system to gauge how much fun a climber is having!
What we really need is a numeric grading system to gauge how much fun a climber is having!
-
captain static
- Posts: 2438
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 6:05 pm
Speaking of sandbag ratings, I liked when I went out to Garden of the Gods. The guidebook said that, "If you are a 5.10 climber, prepare to be humbled on a 5.8." The Huber bros. would be a good definition of awell rounded rock climbers. Came over here to the US w/little trad experience. Practiced on some easy routes in the east. Then went out to the Valley and freed an aid route.
Oh, by the way, I SENT at both Climb Time and RockQuest this week. I's ready for a trip down to the Red.
Oh, by the way, I SENT at both Climb Time and RockQuest this week. I's ready for a trip down to the Red.
"Be responsible for your actions and sensitive to the concerns of other visitors and land managers. ... Your reward is the opportunity to climb in one of the most beautiful areas in this part of the country." John H. Bronaugh
I often don't tell people how hard I climb b/c to tell you the truth, I don't really know. What I mean is, ratings are really only a base for bragging rights b/c most people tend to overstate their abilities. Not to mention that ratings are only relavant to the place tou climb. I know for certain that a 5.10a in the gym where I climb is not a 5.10a at the Red. I can usually look at a route and see if it is within my ability. If I see the rating beforehand and it is at my threshold, I will constantly be looking and worrying about the crux, and not concentrating on my next two or three moves like I should be doing. Just my two cents.