Gung Hoe 12b?
Ah, the vagueries of ratings. I guess these 5.12 and up ratings are divided into so many parts because at that level of climbing there's a noticeable difference between "c" and "d." Down at my lame ass level the differences are much more vague. But you've still got these arguments.
5.11d should be, in my opinion, as different from 5.12 as it is from 5.11c. Otherwise there's no reason for the subratings. Just like you don't have grades on a bottle that measure out cups and then have four divisions in between clustered down close to each cup with a gap before the next cup above. That's just silly. But face it, if you want a 5.11d/5.12 rating you want a 5.119. So ultimately you could start rating routes as 5.11672 because it's a little harder than 5.11c but not quite a 5.11d...
The way I look at it there are two ways to rate a route: Harder than you can do and not too hard for you. That's it. You CAN'T get specific about rating climbs because we're all built differently and what is a breeze for a compact, strong, short woman might be really tough for a long tall man and vice versa.
What is even funnier is how the ratings differ between climbing areas. I remember a recent post about how 5.11's near Moab were a breeze compared with RRG 5.10's. So in my humble opinion it's too subjective for "abcd" ratings below 5.12 but it's ok above 5.12 because there are so few people that can climb 5.14c++X. All fifty of you can argue those ratings.
It's fair, like progressive taxation... oops! Wrong section.
5.11d should be, in my opinion, as different from 5.12 as it is from 5.11c. Otherwise there's no reason for the subratings. Just like you don't have grades on a bottle that measure out cups and then have four divisions in between clustered down close to each cup with a gap before the next cup above. That's just silly. But face it, if you want a 5.11d/5.12 rating you want a 5.119. So ultimately you could start rating routes as 5.11672 because it's a little harder than 5.11c but not quite a 5.11d...
The way I look at it there are two ways to rate a route: Harder than you can do and not too hard for you. That's it. You CAN'T get specific about rating climbs because we're all built differently and what is a breeze for a compact, strong, short woman might be really tough for a long tall man and vice versa.
What is even funnier is how the ratings differ between climbing areas. I remember a recent post about how 5.11's near Moab were a breeze compared with RRG 5.10's. So in my humble opinion it's too subjective for "abcd" ratings below 5.12 but it's ok above 5.12 because there are so few people that can climb 5.14c++X. All fifty of you can argue those ratings.
It's fair, like progressive taxation... oops! Wrong section.
[size=75]You are as bad as Alan, and even he hits the mark sometimes. -charlie
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
Gung Ho and Tissue Tiger are right next to each other. I think it makes sense that we could get a consenses on the difficulty of the climbs compared to each other. It is not apples and oranges. It is not even apples from the RRG and Moab. It is two similar climbs, with similar angles, lengths, and holds.