Enough with the TICK MARKS already

Post by **ynp1** » Thu May 26, 2005 8:54 pm

have you ever seen the picture of billy westbay, jim bridwell and john long after they did the el cap in a day? do they look very humble? or have you ever heard about warren harding and royal robins? they were always trying to out do each other. kind of like now with dean potter and hans and there speed climbing. the history of climbing is full of cocky climbers.

Post by **meetVA** » Thu May 26, 2005 8:59 pm

i guess we just like the non-cocky ones better.

Post by **Toad** » Thu May 26, 2005 9:05 pm

ynp1 wrote:have you ever seen the picture of billy westbay, jim bridwell and john long after they did the el cap in a day? do they look very humble? .

Would one expect them to appear humble to a simple camera? I think the better question would be did they spray to everyone, everywhere about their accomplishment and make much noise about the fact that they climbed in Yosemite.

Post by **ynp1** » Thu May 26, 2005 9:13 pm

Toad, good point... but i dont think they hid that picture in a closet did they. those guys loved being the best. also im not making all that much noise, but she said i didnt climb. so i just asked her one question.

Post by **J-Rock** » Thu May 26, 2005 10:07 pm

Hey JR, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I wasn't talking about my routes or Muir Valley, nor was I singeling anybody out. I was talking about people who hangdog and tick mark their way up a route and then say that the grade was soft. If it was so soft then why didn't they onsight it? Also, my complaint was about "excessive" tick marks. You missed the part about "excessive".

Again, I wasn't talking about Muir Valley or those people who said that the grades there were soft. But, since you brought it up...

It is bad style to hangdog and tick mark your way up a route and THEN claim that the grade is soft. I certainly don't have perfect or ideal ethics, but that's definitely not cool. If someone hangdogs and tick marks then that is fine, but when that same person then has the audacity to say that the grade is soft (after that) then I say that they ARE a fucking idiot loser.

Who cares if something is a 10a or a 10b, or a 10d or an 11a? What difference does it make? It doesn't change the route or the experience! Only the egos of the climbers involved... Personally, I would prefer to go with the Sharma system and not grade the routes. Instead, we make a rough estimate and then let the climbing community (as a whole) grade them based on the online guide votes. So far it appears that we have been pretty accurate and that there is a very vocal minority that overgeneralizes Muir and responds that ALL the grades there are soft. The online guide has not reflected this with the consensus votings so I really wonder how many of those routes these people actually climbed to make such an overgeneralization.

As I've said before, these grades are based on the consensus of the climbing community. Nearly EVERY route matches the consensus in the online guide. In fact, if you want to get technical about it -- more routes are graded under the consensus grades than harder. This can easily be verified and you can check it out for yourself on the online guide. If you disagree with a grade then we encourage you to submit a vote and it will be adjusted accordingly (based on the majority opinion).

Post by **Horatio Felacio** » Thu May 26, 2005 10:26 pm

since pigsteak is slacking...you really don't know if the people who complain about soft grades are a minority. it could be the people who are voting have the most fragile egos and really want a particular route to be .11a instead of .10b. more than likely the people who vote in the online guidebook are trying to sandbag someone, or trying to get a hard send ticked off on their spray list. i would go so far as to say that the majority of climbers would rather send the softest .12a in the red, instead of a stout .11c.

on another note, a lot of people climbing at their limit and planning on projecting a route will hangdog, tick, etc. all over a route on their 1st try. let's say a person has sent a load of .12d's and wants to work a .13a. most people in this position would admit defeat at the begining for the onsight, so why wouldn't they just hangdog up the route figuring out all the moves 1st? if that person sent it easily 2nd go, then yeah maybe that route really is soft.

Post by **J-Rock** » Thu May 26, 2005 10:37 pm

Yeah, you have some good points there Matt (especially about the projecting of a route, but if they don't send the route and they claim the grade is still soft then that is just plain wrong). I just find it odd that the votes match the grades so often yet somehow there is a reputation for softness. The people who are complaining about the grades can submit votes also. In fact, if they are already commenting about it then surely they would cast a vote for whatever they felt the proper grade might be? Wouldn't they? I mean if they feel so strongly about it then why don't they put in their votes? Maybe they did and there were simply more people who felt otherwise. I don't really know. Hard to say.

I agree with ya that most climbers would probably send a supersoft 12a then a hard 11c. I think the voting box on the online guide is a helpful tool and hopefully the voting is not only done by one group or the other. I'm glad that the consensus voting is there because then I don't have to take full responsibility for the grading of a route that I put up.

You're right, I don't really know, but the votes do strongly suggest that, for the most part, the grades are relatively accurate.

Post by **Wes** » Thu May 26, 2005 10:46 pm

I think the online grades that people vote for are soft on several routes that I kinda think of as soft as well. Not in muir, but in other areas. Esp. for some of the 12a'a. Who would want thier first .12 to be downrated to 11d? So, I would say Matt is right about that.

Post by **ynot** » Thu May 26, 2005 10:46 pm

Must be a sport thing. the oscure trad out there is often times sandbagged .I get in over my limit now and then.

Post by **Horatio Felacio** » Thu May 26, 2005 10:48 pm

i wasn't really attacking your arguments, just felt like playing devils advocate. i don't really give a shit one way or the other. it is lame that people give you guys shit about how they think a grade is different. why do they care? it's not like any of the people complaining climb hard enough that they have a sponsor to impress. you and t-bone and weber should start taking names and not letting people who give you shit climb at muir valley...tow their car and charge them with trespassing. bitches.