Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MisterE
Social climber
Across town from Easy Street
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2007 - 11:40am PT
|
Second on Index, WA.
That dome stuff in North Carolina (Whitesides,Looking Glass etc) is pretty rough for the grades.
|
|
Josh Higgins
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2007 - 11:50am PT
|
Mt. Woodson... I've been leading 5.12 trad this summer, and last time I tried Hear My Train a Comin (11c) it shut me down completely. I did it a long time ago, but it tore a muscle in my shoulder and I was out for about 2 months.
Reeds is not the standard for 5.9. The Open Book at Tahquitz is, literally, the definition of 5.9.
Josh
|
|
Matt M
Trad climber
Tacoma, WA (Temp in San Antonio for Yr)
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2007 - 11:53am PT
|
Sandbagged is always hard to pin down because there are areas where runnout or "different style" climbing gets lumped into the grade more than it should. I think generally, offwidths ANYWHERE are sandbagged, even when you know what you're doing. I think knowing the techniques knocks them down to reasonable sandbag as opposed to laughable under-grading.
I learned in the gunks and agree with their sandbag-edness BELOW 5.10. Above, that I think the playing field starts to level out some. For instance, I thought Double-issima was spot on for the grade but Modern Times (8+) is THE classic gunks sandbag.
Hands down INDEX, WA is the sandbag capitol. I've done mid 11 trad at Cathedral Ledge onsight but still get worked on 10s at index and am damn proud of any 11 I've done there. I truly believe if you can comfortable lead index 11 you can lead 11 anywhere and probably into the low 12s with
|
|
ryanb
climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2007 - 12:09pm PT
|
Index, WA is defiantly the hardest-for-the-grade area I have climbed at. It also unique amongst the areas listed in that the vast majority of the climbs are 5.10 or harder with most seeming to be 5.11b or 5.11d.
|
|
phile
Trad climber
SF, CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2007 - 12:31pm PT
|
I found Birdcage at the Gunks to be harder than any 5.9 I've done in CA, where I normally climb. I wondered if the ratings were stiffer there than yose or I just wasn't clicking with the route--maybe it was both.
|
|
darod
Big Wall climber
South Side Billburg
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2007 - 12:44pm PT
|
Birdcage is a 10a/b (the corner section might be 5.9, but the traverse right before the roof exit is the business). Birdland is a 5.8+.
Having learned to climb at the Gunks, i remember my first trip to IC I thought everything was easy for the grade, the fact that you could pretty much stand at the bottom of a climb and know almost exactly the gear you were going to need it just make everything so much easier. At the time the hardest pich I had ever lead at the Gunks was a 5.8, and my first lead at the Creek was a 5.9+ (i'm talking on-sight here).
I guess grades are only as good as the standard for a specific area, IMHO.
|
|
MisterE
Social climber
Across town from Easy Street
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2007 - 01:13pm PT
|
FYI: Grades at IC mean nothing, due to the variety of hand sizes for any given person.
So quoth the Doctor himself.
|
|
darod
Big Wall climber
South Side Billburg
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2007 - 01:25pm PT
|
SeņorE, agreed, but then again, that kinda applies to most crack climbing areas...
|
|
adventurewagen
Trad climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2007 - 01:39pm PT
|
It's all too subjective if you ask me. I don't think you can even compare one area to the next, I think you'd have to compare specific routes at one particular area to come up with a sand bagged rating.
I mean Yosemite has some solid grades from 5.3 to 5.9 but if that's the base then it's not sand bagged just reality. And from what I've climbed there in the 5.10-.12 range they seem more spot on. Index really doesn't have much below 5.9 most of which would be sand bagged but only in comparison to other areas which I'd argue are soft giving you the appearance of a sand bagged area. If you compare the 9's to the 10's in the area you'll find they aren't sand bagged really.
I think ratings have just gotten too diluted over the years. People rate things with different ideals. Just because it's run out like the needles doesn't make the 5.8 harder than 5.8 and just because the rough and wide cracks of Vedavou are unusual doesn't make the technical climbing any harder for the grade they get.
Then it gets tougher if you include sport areas. Is a route 5.10 because it's a really long 5.9? What if you've got a super short route with one 5.11ish move. Do you rate it a 10 because it's short or an 11 based on a single move?
It just seems like routes people consider sand bagged are those put up from back in the day. It seems like back then climbers would rate a route based on the hardest part of the route you'd have to climb regardless of the endurance requirement. Now it seems like even if the route technically is no more challenging than a 5.8 it might be rated 5.10 because of pro, length of route, endurance requirements, R-factor, etc.
So the real question is how "should" routes be rated (hypothetically in a perfect world)? That right there should then tell us which particular routes are "sand bagged". What factors went into rating routes in the 60's, 70's compared to now? If we toss out some of the ego driven route's and deal with the average routes how do we come up with their rating?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!