The most technique-intensive route you've climbed at the RRG

[the lurkist]

It seems that strength and power wash away need for technique.

[JR]

I love your take on "technique" Spoonman. It is well thought out and seems very personal to you.

I can not concur with the "all routes are equally technical" sentiment.

I would say a route that feels technical to someone is a route that is at an obtainable grade for an individual and feels harder than the given grade because of the skills required to send.

So does this prove your point that all routes are equally technical and the climbers are the ones that are not equal?

Some moves or techniques are not as intuitive as others. This can translate into a difficult/technical move for the people without these skills. Does this translate into a more difficult grade? Not necessarily.
I would argue that some moves are simpler than others. Some skills are simpler than others. Some techniques are easier to master. Some routes are less technical.

There is a reason people are listing some of the same routes. Or at least nodding in agreement when it comes to some of the so called technical routes. Is it because everyone is wrong about these routes being technical because all routes are equally technical? Or do these routes contain counter-intuitve moves or misdirection that led everyone to the same conclusion? I would say these are technical routes.

I hate to pick at your post but it seems that you describe a climb that is not equally technical. You describe a climb that contains many techniques which you perceive as not equivalent.

[kato]

When I see a powerful guy flail on a problem, and then some slim chick come along and sail up it, I think to myself, hmmm, she has good technique.

[bcombs]

And also as a pet peeve, don't be a douche by being petty and pointing out grammatical errors.

Wow, really wasn't trying to be douchy (douchee ? ).

My assumption is that when someone is writing a long response it was meant to be read by the target audience. When every other phrase is separated by fifteen periods and words that are meant to be emphasized with bold type are spelled incorrectly, I stop reading. It was more of any FYI to the writer that they may be missing part of their target audience. Also, Firefox has built in spell check.

[caribe]

Please read through this and stay with me even though you don't initially understand what I am talking about. The concept is straight forward.

When we talk about transitions at a molecular level we consider
A ─► [A*] ─► B
where A, A*, and B are a collection of states (parametric descriptors) that the molecule can be in at a certain energy and where A and B are at relatively low energy compared to A*.

Molecular changes that occur less readily have only a few allowed states for A*. Likewise molecular changes that occur readily have comparatively more allowed states for A*.

If you made it this far thanks for reading!

A move on a climb involves a body change from a relatively relaxed position (A) through an uncomfortable position (A*) to a new relatively relaxed position (B). The more body positions (configurations, parametric descriptors that specify your position, fitness, mental state, etc) that you can possibly take on through the move (as A*) the less technical the less ß-intensive the move.

I think the technical level of a climb can be defined mathematically given one's body parameters and the routes exact specifications. . . but that would take a lot of work. I think it is fine that we listen to one another describe our experientia and cite the grade of the climb. I am fine with that. All moves (and the sum of a set of moves= a route, hence all routes) strictly speaking can not have the same technical level, or you are going to have to redefine technique.

[anticlmber]

when you put it that way

hen-ry
lip service
anything at hp40

[der uber]

The more body positions (configurations, parametric descriptors that specify your position, fitness, mental state, etc) that you can possibly take on through the move (as A*) the less technical the less ß-intensive the move.

I like that explanation - that sounds similar to 'beta-intensive' as in there's a specific way you have to move through it.

[caribe]

The more body positions (configurations, parametric descriptors that specify your position, fitness, mental state, etc) that you can possibly take on through the move (as A*) the less technical the less ß-intensive the move.

I like that explanation - that sounds similar to 'beta-intensive' as in there's a specific way you have to move through it.

ß-intensive = 'beta-intensive'
I am happy that you found my operational definitions intuitive. I think it helps to conceptualize climbing in this way.

[the lurkist]

I get it. So if there is a finite body, complex movement, lack of options on how to complete a "high energy state" A* move on a route, it would be more beta intensive?

You are a geek.

[caribe]

lack of options on how to complete a "high energy state" A* move on a route, it would be more beta intensive?
You are a geek.

Yes, that is right more technical and ß-intensive, we geeks in reference to this use terms like conformationally restricted transitional cross section or entropically challenged transition states. If you were a molecule passing through A* this would be an entropy-poor path and thus a path that you would likely not take unless there was a lot of heat (energy) available to be absorbed from the system to enable the existence of said state.
• The analogy to to the movements in climbing are spot on with the exception that we are not molecules. To go from the molecule to bulk properties of a substance we use statistical thermodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_thermodynamics
Ha ha ha ha at this point James Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann are rolling around in their graves in agony!
The analogy of this to climbing moves are also spot on. In this case many climbers perform the moves on a route and we track and collect stats on their body positions and the average difference between their body configurations at A are compared to the same at A* where A is a resting position before a crux and A* is a transitional body position at the midpoint of the crux.
Hell you could sum these differences in body positions statistically and use something related to the Eyring equation to calculate general route difficulty. http://www.chemie.uni-regensburg.de/Org ... /eyr-e.htm
Henry Eyring and Svante Arrhenius are now both rolling around in their graves beseeching me to shut the F up! Seriously these guys are really mortified. (My little play on words for the day since mortification already refers to death).