RRC Archives

512OW wrote:[

#1 Fact is, I never said we climb BECAUSE of numbers... only FOR them (as in you reach FOR something)


#2 Higher number = More Challenge

#1 some reach for others because of. i am not the judge of who does and doesn't they know who they are and that is their bag.

#2 not true. some shit is scary, challenging, better, and not a huge number.
grades are fine for measuring YOUR gain, NOT for measuring someones worth, or how much they "suck" what if a person only has one arm yet climb 5.10. that;s a shite number, (by the number game standard) are they weak-asses?? so why if someone only wants to climb to a certain grade are they accepting mediocrity. they are psyched, why can't you be?

512OW wrote:

anticlmber wrote:like i said. vertical feet might be the only number i would be interested in. i'a afraid of heights. ten feet used to be way up there. 2000ft would be a big accomplishment for me. i can quantify that by look, don't need the number.

is it a number?? sure.
is it the number?? not the one most people look for.
maybe from now on when someone asks me what i climbed i'll just say three 75footers and two 50 footers.
work for you??

Sure, if thats your system... ok.

Fact is, I never said we climb BECAUSE of numbers... only FOR them (as in you reach FOR something)

My main goals are long free climbs. Rainbow Wall, Moonlight Buttress, Regular NW Face, etc...

The numbers attached to those routes give me a specific thing to shoot for before I go out there and get my ass handed to me. I want those routes for their history, their locations, and their aesthetics.... not for the numbers. However, I'd be way more psyched to do Freerider than Nutcracker.... just because the movement will be more challenging, in a more inspiring arena.

Higher number = More Challenge

dude! let's go do freerider or moonlight buttress or any other long, hard free route. i'd really like to do a free route on el cap (not the east buttress or west face or any other non-el-cap-but-technically-el-cap-route) before i die.

Horatio Felacio wrote:
dude! let's go do freerider or moonlight buttress or any other long, hard free route. i'd really like to do a free route on el cap (not the east buttress or west face or any other non-el-cap-but-technically-el-cap-route) before i die.

Say when.

anticlmber wrote: #1 some reach for others because of. i am not Vanilla Ice of who does and doesn't they know who they are and that is their bag.

Ummm... huh? Was that in english?

anticlmber wrote: #2 not true. some shit is scary, challenging, better, and not a huge number.

I never said huge number. If you are a 5.8 climber, 5.9 will be scarier and more challenging for you. Nearly always. 9 is bigger than 8. Do the math. Most often, as rock climbing gets harder, the quality goes up. Again, do the math.

anticlmber wrote: grades are fine for measuring YOUR gain, NOT for measuring someones worth, or how much they "suck" what if a person only has one arm yet climb 5.10. that;s a shite number, (by the number game standard) are they weak-asses?? so why if someone only wants to climb to a certain grade are they accepting mediocrity. they are psyched, why can't you be?

The "number game standard"?? What the hell are you talking about? If a one armed person climbs 5.10, and last year they climbed 5.9, then they are bad ass. Why? Because they push themselves, instead of sitting around making excuses about how they climb "for themselves".

You use the numbers the same as everyone else. You're just too "enlightened" to see it....

Wish I could lead 5.9 trad without wetting myself. :sigh:

i climb, you climb, what else is their to discuss.

i don't know where the Vanilla Ice came from?? drunk typing i reckon.

512OW wrote:

Horatio Felacio wrote:
dude! let's go do freerider or moonlight buttress or any other long, hard free route. i'd really like to do a free route on el cap (not the east buttress or west face or any other non-el-cap-but-technically-el-cap-route) before i die.

Say when.

I'm in!!!!

SWEET!

512OW wrote:

anticlmber wrote: grades are fine for measuring YOUR gain, NOT for measuring someones worth, or how much they "suck" what if a person only has one arm yet climb 5.10. that;s a shite number, (by the number game standard) are they weak-asses?? so why if someone only wants to climb to a certain grade are they accepting mediocrity. they are psyched, why can't you be?

The "number game standard"?? What the hell are you talking about? If a one armed person climbs 5.10, and last year they climbed 5.9, then they are bad ass. Why? Because they push themselves, instead of sitting around making excuses about how they climb "for themselves".

You use the numbers the same as everyone else. You're just too "enlightened" to see it....

'Number game standard', referring to the grade of difficulty or skill level needed for a certain route, but likely also the level at which people are rated by others. i.e. you can climb a 5.12? you're good and worthy of a real climber's time because you are competitors and peers. vs. you do 5.9? You're not very dedicated/skilled- train harder to be like us. (?)
It seems like the gist of what you're all talking about.

Numbers, numbers, compare, compete, progress . . . Some just do it to be outdoors, no pressures to do x,y,z, just to enjoy. There aren't any excuses, only justifications to explain that 'progress' and 'certain numbers' are not the goal for everyone. Don't care what rating a climb is, only if it gave me a good time. Whether or not it's an 'onsite' or not, 10, or 12, multiple tries. . .doesn't really matter

Remember the phrase, "It's not about winning or losing - it's how you play the game; and if you had fun" ? Motivating, huh? Encouraging. Don't remember the part where the coach points out it's really 'an excuse' for people who aren't as good.

basically what everyone is trying to say is that anticlimber is a homo.