joshua tree grading

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 21 - 40 of total 89 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Mighty Hiker

Social climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Nov 26, 2008 - 12:01am PT

No, it's the Squamish decimal system.

Jaybro

Social climber

wuz real!

Nov 26, 2008 - 12:05am PT

Coming form Vedauwoo, Yosemite and Josh ratings always seemed lite.

As i get older, sometimes, they seem to be getting more accurate.

Anastasia

climber

Not here

Nov 26, 2008 - 12:08am PT

It depends on the FA team that set up the climb.
AF

Brian in SLC

Social climber

Salt Lake City, UT

Nov 26, 2008 - 12:11am PT

wait... isn't it the YOSEMITE decimal system?

Yeah, but, I thought it really was developed just south of J Tree (ie, Tahquitz).

Really depends on the routes. Some 5.7's seem kinda reasonable, but, some kinda tough.

I thought Beginners Two was harder than Beginners One.

Only when you get into the higher grades to the routes seem to settle out a bit as far as consistancy. In my limited, less than 1k, ie non local opinion.

Yeah, a similar place is the City of Rocks in Idaho, where some of the routes are soft in comparison, but, some routes pretty hard for the grade too. Overall, softer, though. That Kimbrough guy (the "OAG") might be onto something (hardest 5.8 I ever did was in Kootenay Canyon in Montana).

Pretty subjective and fun to debate. I note a few ratings in the Joshua Tree guides have changed over the years...

Can't wait to get my arse handed to me again on yet another 5.7 at Joshua Tree...(geez, I couldn't fit through Skinny Dip to save my life).

-Brian in SLC

MisterE

Trad climber

My Inner Nut

Nov 26, 2008 - 12:11am PT

Responding to AF:

However, as guide books go through series of editions, there is somewhat of a "normalizing" process, to a large degree.

I wonder why I post these perspectives to such a specific regional forum sometimes...

AZ climbers board sucks, that's why.

Chicken Skinner

Trad climber

Yosemite

Nov 26, 2008 - 12:15am PT

It is obvious that Yosemite has been over-rated for years. Take the Nose for example, it used to be a Grade VI and is barely a Grade II now.

Ken

Domingo

Trad climber

El Portal, CA

Nov 26, 2008 - 12:19am PT

Yeah, and it used to be A4 and now it's C2.

Oh wait.... how'd that happen?

adventurous one

Trad climber

reno nev.

Nov 26, 2008 - 12:38am PT

Harrison,

Where do you normally climb at that makes you think JT routes are sandbagged? Where ones home crag is tends to bias ones feeling for what the standard is. Many newer sport climbing crags tend to have grossly exagerated ratings for the easy and moderate routes. To get a feel for the standard, one must climb the old classics of that grade.

In general, I don't think JT has an abundance of sandbagged routes, especially compared to Yosemite or the other older established California areas. Seems like the newer the area, the more "airbagged" the routes tend to be (in general).

Would be interesting to continue this thread with opinions about how everyone feels the ratings at their home crags compare to areas they have climbed on road trips. Are newly developed areas softer on ratings, or is it a geographical thing?

Elcapinyoazz

Social climber

Redlands

Nov 26, 2008 - 12:40am PT

Depends on what you're good at.

Indian Creek locals would find Wangerbanger light and Rule Brittania stiff. Gunks locals would find Bebop Tango light and EBGBs stiff. Vedauwoo locals would find em all light and New Jack locals would find em all stiff.

Who cares?

Double D

climber

Nov 26, 2008 - 12:54am PT

Ratings are sort of funny thing. I remember the first time I went to JT I thought the ratings were kinda soft from the valley but as previously stated, it's the foot work. The steeper stuff seemed right in line though.

Each area has it's particular types of rock that lend themselves to different techniques and thus the ratings if you're not used to that type of climbing, seem hard. I remember the first time I went to Eldo and someone recommended Rosy C. and if memory serves me right it was then rated 5.9. Stiffest 5.9 I'd ever done but then again Yosemite didn't realy have steep face climbing except the bouldering. A couple of days later we start up the Naked Edge and the 1st moves on T2 seemed off the charts hard for it's rating but the rest of the climb including the crux seemed very reasonable for the grade with the last pitch (5.10d hand crack if I remember right, slightly overhanding) was a blast. The following day we did something across the valley and watched a part on N.E. They cruised the crux and totally flailed on the 10.d hand crack. It's just what you're used to I guess.

Darren D.

Social climber

Nov 26, 2008 - 01:02am PT

Hey Eric Beck, your list was fun so I thought I would try with the main areas that I have climbed. I have climbed more at Joshua Tree then any other area, so for me it is the standard.

Joshua Tree: standard
Squamish: 1.0 soft
Lovers Leap: soft 0.5
Sugarloaf: right on
Yosemite: stiff by 0.5
Tuolumne: right on
Clark Canyon: soft by 1.0
ORG: right on
High Sierra: right on...except for class 4
Redrock: 1.0 soft
Tahquitz: right on

Ghost

climber

A long way from where I started

Nov 26, 2008 - 01:18am PT

There are only two grades...

...either you can climb it, or you can't.

Edit: Visiting a climbing area for a couple of days and then telling the world that "Area X is soft" or "Area X is totally sandbagged" is to display ignorance. (Unless Area X only has 20 climbs). Venues with many many hundreds, or thousands, of routes will have grades all over the place.

Now, having said that, the most consistently sandbagged grades I've ever encountered were at Index.

Tarbuster

climber

right here, right now

Nov 26, 2008 - 01:23am PT

Isn't Walk on the Wild Side 5.8?
It is/was I'm sure... there's your problem!

But seriously, a lot of this has to do with the softening of ratings over the last few decades. Sport climbing in particular rose right alongside, or fomented perhaps, a dilution of the rating system, especially at "moderate" levels, like 5.10.

Aside from that, comparing these traditional areas, in a way that abides the climber's necessary mastery of each type of rock, I have found old-school cragging areas, the primary ones such as Joshua Tree/Taquitz, Yosemite Valley, Eldorado Canyon, all to have pretty consistent and parallel ratings schemes.

The idea that remote areas, maybe Devils Lake is a good example, can show a trend toward stiffer ratings, that might be an assertion that has legs.

Dapper Dan

climber

corona

Nov 26, 2008 - 01:24am PT

who. Phuking. cares. you are all breaking it down as if it is important. just climb, enjoy it, and go about your life.

Tarbuster

climber

right here, right now

Nov 26, 2008 - 01:27am PT

Dapper D,

haha!
Just Watch Us Care... this thread will probably go on for a ways.

Not that you don't have a good handle on it.

Mungeclimber

Trad climber

sorry, just posting out loud.

Nov 26, 2008 - 01:55am PT

are ORG ratings really 'right on?'

I don't recall that to be the case in my very limited climbing experience. I thought many moderates, were somewhat soft compared to Meadows or Valley or some JT routes (Bartlett guides). Been awhile so I will reserve judgement and the route 'show us your tits' I always get pumped on.

Clark very soft.

Lower Merced (in Yos Valley) hard.
Yosemite Valley spot on except certain stand outs.
Josh spot on for many climbs, slab climbs seem easy but if you don't do friction then you're hosed.
Meadows spot on to hard, varies

I trust guys like Tar, Todd, and Jaybro and anyone else that has climbed all over hells half acre. Their depth of experience gives a good informed opinion, IMHO on the question of whether an 'area' is soft or hard.

Fun to think about by comparing climbs.

happiegrrrl

Trad climber

New York, NY

Nov 26, 2008 - 09:05am PT

I only followed WOTWS but I sort of felt I might like to lead it, and I don't lead 5.7 or 5.8, so to imagine it being harder that that, even, seems weird to me. It seemed 5.6 when I was on it, and though I was following, the bolts didn't seem that far apart that I'd be worried. The traverse that is written as being sketchy didn't even phase me. (Now watch me try it next week and be himpering like a baby.)

The scariest part to me was the walk off where you go down that huge chimneyish ramp. Oh yeah, and then that waterslide part where I didn't see the rap bolts at first.... THAT looked firghtening....hahaha.

It's funny. Not that I have climbed all that many routes or that many years, but Jtree seems the same as the Gunks to me, and the few climbs I was on in Yosemite seemed similarly graded too.