RRC Archives

I like the idea of rating it for the average climber but make a note that it's reachy. I love my ape index but can appreciate how height can really be a factor, especially on those crunched up balancy moves that absolutely kill me.

Us short poeple just learn to dyno.

rabbit wrote:I onsite about what I redpoint too but I am in total distent with you. I'm sorry, and I don't mean this in a bad way, but you don't seem to be putting up any routes and, according to your spray list, you haven't even climbed the routes there (which you should because they are GREAT!!! ). I think it's only fair to assume the requirements necessary to place judgement before doing so.

Haven't put up any routes?? You mean sport climbs? And what does any of that have to do with grading a climb? Absolutely nothing, I believe.

J-Rock wrote:Hmm... I have a question. A route like "Psyberpunk" has a couple of reach cruxes. These moves will probably be 5.10 for a taller climber. However, a shorter climber might have some difficulty with a few of these moves and the route will probably be 5.11 for them. How is this to be graded? Historically it was left up the the first ascentionist, yet I've also heard that it should be graded for an average height of say 5'9" or so. Or, if it is 11c for a short person and 10c for a tall person should it be averaged to 11a? Or, should it stay 10c with a notation that it may be harder for shorter climbers? What do you guys think?

What you're talking about is extremely rare. Theres almost always an alternate way to do it. Ask Katie Brown.

rhunt wrote:ok well I totally disagree with Kris. Routes have always and should always be graded based on on-sight without any preplaced gear or draws. Once you wire out a climb you can down grade it all you want but it is still the same effort on on-sight.

Name another climbing area in the US where routes are graded based on the onsight, and not the easiest way to do them. I've never been to one, and would like to know so that I don't go to such a ridiculous area.

Wiring a route, and basing a grade on the easiest sequence of movements are two completely different things. Wiring implies that you've built up muscle memory, which in turn makes it seem easier to you.

NOW....if my onsight ability is alot stronger than yours, then whose onsight ability do you rate your climbs toward?

squeezindlemmon wrote:It's funny how people put disclaimers in their post when they have something to say against Kris.... Don't you guys want to be featured in any of Odub's mixes?

Its cuz they're scurrred.

rabbit wrote:I onsite about what I redpoint too but I am in total distent with you. I'm sorry, and I don't mean this in a bad way, but you don't seem to be putting up any routes and, according to your spray list, you haven't even climbed the routes there (which you should because they are GREAT!!! ). I think it's only fair to assume the requirements necessary to place judgement before doing so.

Also, lets compare the two....my 240some routes, to your 40....not to mention dozens that aren't in the book, and HUNDREDS of climbs in other areas. And I've only gone thru about half the Red or so for my spray list....

So why am I not qualified but you are?? Cuz you maybe drilled some bolts?? Sorry pal, I've drilled em by hand. Have you? Any idiot can put in a bolt, clip it, and call it a sport route. Talk to me when your routes are classics or mean something.

And why is it required to climb a particular route in order to debate the way in which a climb should be graded? Its not.

Christ, its like I'm sittin here playin cards with my brothers kids or somethin....nervewrackin sons of bitches.

5 posts in a row... Kris, are you talking to yourself?

Apparently I was talking to you

If it makes you feel less senile to think so, go right ahead, sweetiepie.