Page 8 of 12
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:15 pm
by 512OW
woodchuck008 wrote:11+ as 'moderate'...geez this just shows the real difference in thought, respect, ethical background, trad vs sport. Am I to believe that the upper grades increase on an exponential degree while the lower end is just a plain linear number? So 5.5 to 5.8 is sooo simple now to some minds that 5.11 'moderate' is the new version of 'moderate' 5.6 to 5.8? I don't think so. To downgrade the efforts of the 5.11 climber to being 'moderate' just because you spend your life on bolted 5.13's is a real slap, a put down to any climber who is NOT as cool, as hardcore as you believe you may be.
5.11 to 5.14 is a number gap comparable to 5.6 to 5.9. Sure it's a different world, a degree that may be unnoticable to many who see the 5.11 as tough as the 5.14 since both are currently out of their grasp.
Any number from the 5.11 range and above was, and is, still quite a bit more difficult than anything to be called a 'moderate'. If you feel that your are so much more superior at your level of climbing than the lowly 5.11 climber, well I feel sorry for your attitude and need for being 'someone' of importance in the climbing ranks. Maybe we really do need to use new names and clear adjectives like the Brits do...'hard, very severe, extremely hard severe', etc. instead of downgrading a known, accepted and understood number to 'moderate'. It's like saying to climbers "you'll never be as good as I am", because you plan on degrading the value of their achievement the closer they get to your little world. Yep, I don't send 5.12s but at least I enjoy every climb I do, no matter what the rating is.
I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about the whole world. 5.11 is moderate. So is 5.12. Period. Hard climbing doesn't begin until about 13b. 5.11 has been climbed since the 60's for Christs sake. Since the word "hard" is relative, you have to use a generalization when speaking of it. And in terms of the current state of climbing, 5.11 is moderate at best. Shit, my daughter climbed 5.11 within a year of climbing.... at 10 years old.
And no.... 5.11 to 5.14 is nowhere near comparable to 5.6 to 5.9. Not even remotely close. 13d to 14a is probably closer to the leap between 5.6 and 5.9, and even then its impossible to compare.
And just so you're in the know next time you try to preach, I haven't spent my whole life on bolted climbs. In fact, I'd climbed only a handful of bolted routes till last year. I started on trad... and 5.11 was, and still is, easy.
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:26 pm
by 512OW
In fact, I'd say that your opposition to using the word "moderate" for 5.11 is far more egotistical than accepting it. I KNOW that I don't climb hard. I never claimed to. I've barely even scratched the surface of hard climbing, and by the time I train hard and long enough to do something really "hard", it won't be hard anymore. I'm ok with that.
Why aren't you ok with only climbing "moderately", when you claim to enjoy it, regardless of the grade? Sounds like a major ego trip to me...
Sorry, but you should catch up to the current state of things. Trad just isn't mysterious anymore. It isn't harder. I didn't wanna accept it either, but its the truth.
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:31 pm
by woodchuck008
Oh I see, it's due to the oh so important 'current state of things'. New is always better I'm to belive. I am not intimidated or embarrassed by my level of climging; it's the attitude to downgrade the earlier efforts as 'moderate', with new limits meaning climbers need a higher, better label for themselves and thus choose to call those climbers of less degree, a 'moderate' now. The Brits adjectives might be vague to us, but possibly the world of 12d to 13a to 14d needs some more superlatives to glorify their efforts. Let's try these: stupendous', beyond impressive', or maybe some exponents in a math sort of way will work. Go ahead, use any and all that are needed as the limits soar into the Sharma World of 5.15. It is no fault or defect for someone to enjoy where they are, what they are doing in their enjoyment of the climb. Just don't turn around and re-certify those below you as 'moderates'. By the end of '09, who knows they might be downgraded in your terms to 'novice', or even the dreaded 'gumby' level of 5.9.
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:07 pm
by 512OW
Yes. When 5.11 was "hard", it was because it was near the upper end of the then current scale, same as 5.14 is now. You're correct, its only a matter of time before 5.13c, or even 14c will be moderate, and 5.11 will be entry level gumby. I mean, once upon a time, 5.9 was the hardest in the world... now even you call it easy or moderate. Thats the nature of things.
Its not about a "better" label. Calling 5.11 moderate, is, in essence, exactly the same as the Brit grading system. I'm all for their system. It seems that you'd have a problem with it if the "label" didn't line up with what YOU thought. I'm not labeling the people who are climbing it.... I'm labeling the climb. I'd be perfectly fine if the climbs I climbed were labeled "novice". It would just make me try harder... not whine that I should carry a more significant label, like you seem to be doing...
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:17 pm
by Shamis
I'll eat my harness the day 14c becomes 'moderate'.
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:32 pm
by 512OW
Shamis, once upon a time, 5.10 was the hardest on the planet. I remember reading an essay by Peter Croft that it took him several years before he could climb 5.10. Now, many kids climb 5.14 the year they start climbing.
I'd bet that within 30 years, 14c will be moderate, or at least the low end of hard climbing.
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:23 pm
by Lateralus
this is some classic OhWBS. "many kids climb 5.14 the year they start "
name 1... since you said many, how bout name 10? I"m not talking about the pink route in the gym either, outdoor rock climbs..
PS comparing trad ratings to sport ratings is kind of like comparing hip hop to real music, very moronic.
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:02 pm
by 512OW
Lateralus wrote:this is some classic OhWBS. "many kids climb 5.14 the year they start "
name 1... since you said many, how bout name 10? I"m not talking about the pink route in the gym either, outdoor rock climbs..
PS comparing trad ratings to sport ratings is kind of like comparing hip hop to real music, very moronic.
Chris Sharma did 14a early in his second season, as did Sam Elias. I don't know the exact dates, but it was close to being within a year. Dave Graham took like 10 months. I've heard of others, but so many people climb 14a now that I couldn't possibly know them all. Ondra climbed 14c at 12 and 14d at 13. How could you possibly think it doesn't happen?
Trad and sport ratings are exactly the same. No difference at all. Just because you lack the skills to do one or the other, doesn't mean they should be different.
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:06 pm
by charlie
Lateralus wrote:...PS comparing trad ratings to sport ratings is kind of like comparing hip hop to real music, very moronic.
I hope you know more about climbing than you do about music.
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:38 am
by Shamis
512OW wrote:Shamis, once upon a time, 5.10 was the hardest on the planet. I remember reading an essay by Peter Croft that it took him several years before he could climb 5.10. Now, many kids climb 5.14 the year they start climbing.
I'd bet that within 30 years, 14c will be moderate, or at least the low end of hard climbing.
You may be right, but I think the huge surge in numbers in the last 20 years is a direct result of climbing gyms, and sport climbing. I think these 2 things have allowed most climbers to reach limits that they never would have before, but I don't see what new invention will push the average climber up to the 5.14 level, and to consider 14 moderate I think the average climber would have to be able to do it.