Sanctuary sandbag

Post by **J-Rock** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:54 am

Also, the area to the right of the Sanctuary and First Fall has seen some recent development and is going to be known as "Inner Sanctum". From the Sanctuary continue following the cliffline to the right for ~200-300 yards. You will pass a small gully and there will be 2 5.10 sport routes: Naughty Neighbors 5.10d and Bad Company 5.10b. Then you will see Karmic Retribution 5.10a and Crack'n Up 5.7 (trad). Next will be Cosmic Trigger 5.12a and Psyberpunk 5.10c (sandbag). Enjoy.

Post by **marathonmedic** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:33 am

I just looked Psyberpunk up in the guidebook. Seems like people think it's more than just a little bit bagged. I'm wondering, at what point to these ratings get changed?

Post by **squeezindlemmon** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:30 pm

marathonmedic wrote:I'm wondering, at what point to these ratings get changed?

The grades were given to us by the FA party, so we would have to consult them and ask their permission to change the route grade. We would like to, of course, keep the ratings fairly close to accurate so that we don't have people who can lead borderline 10c get on routes like these then get hurt. The consensus grade feature on this site is another way we justify changing grades (either up or down). It depends on the number of votes and how consistent the votes are.

Post by **512OW** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:42 pm

Spray Lord wrote:10d my ass! That mother F-er's 11a!

Is there enough of a difference to use those exclamation points????

Post by **J-Rock** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:58 pm

When a route is way off on the rating then I can understand people getting upset. A letter or two difference is not a big deal though. What is particularly frustrating is all the people arguing if a route is 5.10a or 5.10b. What's the difference? If you can climb 5.10a then you can also climb 5.10b. Climb several hundred 5.10's all over the country and then try to get a feel for what a 5.10 is. We've learned that rating these climbs is a very difficult process because people are NEVER happy. One group complains that they are sandbagged the next group says that the same route was too soft. From what I've been told, evidently Porter was upset by this too. The routes generally feel a little bit more difficult when they are on virgin rock with fresh, friable holds and a layer of dirt and grime on the hand and footholds. Not too mention there is often a fine layer of lichen or powder that must be removed to increase the friction. The first 3-4 people that climb the route come up with a consensus onsight grade. This takes into account the angle or the rock, the size of the holds, the distance between them, the availability of rests, techniques required, etc. The group putting up routes at Muir have rather large spray lists and have climbed thousands of 8, 9, 10's, 11's, 12's, etc. all over the Red and the country.

At best these ratings are subjective estimates. If a grade on a route seems to be far off then let us know and it will be considered. For example, Psyberpunk 5.10c feels more like 5.11c according to the consensus so it may be changed to a 5.11 with permission from the first ascentionists.

Post by **Artsay** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:07 pm

I haven't climbed the route but it seems to me that it's a whole number grade off based on the consensus grade in the online guide. Spray Lord was joking and ZSpider is saying it felt a lot harder than its grade. I don't see anyone arguing between a simple letter grade.

Post by **Spray Lord** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:10 pm

thank you Artsay for recognizing the joke there. It was a reference to something powers said years ago. Point is, there is not a difference worth arguing between 10d and 11a.

Post by **Artsay** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:27 pm

Spray Lord wrote:thank you Artsay for recognizing the joke there. It was a reference to something powers said years ago. Point is, there is not a difference worth arguing between 10d and 11a.

No there isn't but what about a whole number grade as in this case? This brings up the old question of: when should a route's grade, if ever, be changed?

I think Johnny used to say that he'd never change a grade of a route unless it was two number grades off or something.

Post by **squeezindlemmon** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:37 pm

As in the case of this route (Psyberpunk 5.10c in the online guide), there is no way a 5.10c leader - borderline 5.10c leader - can lead this route. As in this case, safety is an issue. If it was a mere letter (or two letters) grade harder/softer, then we wouldn't worry about it. But since it is definitely a full on number grade harder, then it needs to be addressed.

Post by **captain static** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:43 pm

I feel it is more acceptable to change a rating when a route is relatively new, like the one in this discussion, than a long established climb. There usually is a conscensus period after a route is put up. One thing to consider is that when a first ascentionist puts in a route well below their ability, they may have a more difficult time tagging on a rating (i.e. a 5.11 might feel like a 5.10 to a 5.13 climber). The other thing to consider is the experience of the first ascentionist and those weighing in on the concensus. Have they done a number of routes at or around that grade on which to base their opinion? And does their experience include climbing at a number of different crags?

As far as changing the grade of a route that has been around for a few years, that would require a lot more scrutiny.