RRC Archives

pigsteak wrote: there is no theory to be had from gathering all these numbers einstein...

Disagree. If I had started recording the number of attempts two years ago and hard a larger sample size, I would put 100 bucks on the fact that we would be able to determine Manifest Destiny is a soft 5.12a compared to Chainsaw Massacre.

It's Jello Pudding soft compared to Wangsaw.

is it soft or just different? that move out the lip on manifest is harder than any individual move on chainsaw.

I understand what you are saying, that routes with hidden holds, difficult sequences, etc. are more difficult to onsite than endurance routes. So when comparing the numbers, sure, you would have to take into account the type of route it is.

This topic will be debated forever. To keep it simple in my own mind I count one attempt as my feet leaving the ground (lead or toprope). Getting a route clean on toprope is just an attempt, not a send, nothing to record. I thought everyone looked at this the same. I guess I was wrong. This might be a little late, but, it might be a good idea to define what an attempt is on the page where spray is recorded.

There will always be factors such as date, condition of climber, weather, climbers strange deffinition of attempt, etc that can sway the data. However, in the long run, if the data set is large enough, I think any analysis of the data should average out and be meaningful.

bc rock...how about all the routes at the Red that are TR only? are you saying they have never had an FA, only attempts?

pigsteak wrote:is it soft or just different? that move out the lip on manifest is harder than any individual move on chainsaw.

Not really. Chainsaw has a trying move in the middle and a few breath-taking clips. You're pulling on crimps without a significant rest. Manifest's move comes after a complete no-hands rest.

However, it is a difficult move when it's soaked, unless you're Michelle Ellington.

So if climbers only record their stats if it takes 2 or less goes, then isn't the theory skewed from the get go? Either the route fit the climber and his conditioning/style or not.

Chainsaw's way harder than Manifest in my book. Though I agree they both qualify as 12a, they're just different.

Seems the logic would follow that the hard sport climbers who arrive at the Lode will warm-up on Chainsaw, probably onsiteing or flashing so they would list it 1 or 2 tries, while the climber trying to break into the grade will climb Manifest 8 times before sending and then honestly list it.

So by the numbers, which would be considered more difficult?

defender wrote:So if climbers only record their stats if it takes 2 or less goes, then isn't the theory skewed from the get go? Either the route fit the climber and his conditioning/style or not.

Chainsaw's way harder than Manifest in my book. Though I agree they both qualify as 12a, they're just different.

Seems the logic would follow that the hard sport climbers who arrive at the Lode will warm-up on Chainsaw, probably onsiteing or flashing so they would list it 1 or 2 tries, while the climber trying to break into the grade will climb Manifest 8 times before sending and then honestly list it.

So by the numbers, which would be considered more difficult?

1. Sure. That's why a large sample would be needed.
2. Manifest versus Chainsaw. Then maybe it's not good to compare these two routes using the numbers? What if it was Harvest versus Flux? They both used to be 5.12d but Harvest was bumped down to 5.12c. They're both on the same wall and climb similarly. I'm betting it took most people more tries to do Flux than it did Harvest.

If the number of tries can't be correlated to the difficulty of a line then maybe it can be correlated to how tricky a line is.

my bad meadows..I was thinking of that super soft 12a climb at Torrent....the one in the middle fo the 12 wall...