RRC Archives

rifle, rrg, and a couple other areas really don't have climbs under 5.9.
im not talking 5.13d, im talking 5.11/12.

I have traveled to many climbing areas, and obviously being stronger opens more climbs to you, however I'm not that strong and have found plenty to get on.

I also recommend concentrating on bouldering, it definitely lends itself to more options at least in my opinion.

true but i believe in rifle there are like two 5.10's and nothing less. aat the red i think you need to climb 5.10 to be able to travel around to more than a few crags. i agree on the bouldering thing too, there are almost always v-easy climbs at the v5 crags.

I could care less how hard someone climbs and I don't want to be liked/respected for my hard sends. I want to be respected for my experience. Experience makes a climber strong to me. "The best climber in the world is the one having the most fun." - Alex Lowe (one of the best climbers in the world - deceased)

If someone is cool, humble, fun to be around, and non-competitive *yet motivated* (big difference) then they get my respect. Just because you climb hard doesn't mean I'll respect you.

Some people think that we should respect everyone we meet but I disagree. Respect is not a God given right...it is earned.

I respect the family man/career driven/5.12 climber more than the climbing bum 5.14 climber.
I respect the 5.9 climber with 14 years experience more than the 5.12, one year into the sport climber.

But hey...that's just me.

can someone explain the importance of experience to me? i don't quite understand where you all are coming from. i don't atuomatically respect grades, i respect people, but not all people, a lot of them are dicks.

I'd ask a woman... they'll tell you. harder and faster isn't necessarily better. It's knowing what to do that counts.

There's really no explaining it though. If you don't get it, you don't get it.


And as far as the deciding factor for 'ranking' climbers. IMO, are they fun to climb with? and can they hold the smoke?

rumbling wrote: And as far as the deciding factor for 'ranking' climbers. IMO, are they fun to climb with? and can they hold the smoke?

i like your thinking.

When I look at the simple question pasted of how do I "rank climbers, in general order." There are so many different ways to rank a climber (or any person, for that matter).

Even if you pull out all of the important stuff, like perseverance, character and attitude, it is still difficult to rank a climber. The grade they can/do/will climb and the location they climb make numerical ranking rediculous. Someone with fat fingers will grade a "finger crack" a 5.11...whereas, I find those easier than a 5.8 offwidth at muscle beach.

And that's only looking at trad...When I first started trad climbing, I was reminded over & over that someone can be a 5.hard sport climber and get stopped on a 5.easy trad route, if they don't know how to jam.

So, when I rank a climber, I don't use anything that can be chosen in a list. I stick with intuition.

rumbling wrote:I'd ask a woman... they'll tell you. harder and faster isn't necessarily better. It's knowing what to do that counts.

There's really no explaining it though. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

Aaron: This is actually the part of the post that was aimed at you.

yeah i know but i liked the other part, too.