Sandbag scale, Index to Red Rocks?

[Dru]

bagged

[dberdinka]

Dru said:

Here's some good real soft ones for you to go do:

 

Orifice Fish 5.9

Kneewrecker Chimney 10a

Skulduggery 10a

Ramapithecus 10b

Payanoia 5.9

Another Tourist in Traction 5.9 (with the fixed rope start)

Man of Leisure 10a

 

all thuper EZ for the grade!

 

Might add

 

Brown Ale 9,

Milk Run 10c A0 (puts Index to shame! )

 

and I'll just say it

 

The Split Pillar pitch

 

to list.

 

[k.rose]

I think that older climbing areas that are considered sand bagged, like Index, yosemite,and eldo are the true representation of what a given grade should feel like. Many newer climbs esp. bolted stuff easier than 5.10 is just over graded, and since this is what most people start on these days they are suprized at how difficult 5.9 really is. I bet Canary at Castle rock has shut down many a climber who thought 5.8 was going to be a walk

[bigwalling]

Dru said:

Here's some good real soft ones for you to go do:

 

Orifice Fish 5.9

 

That think wooped my ass!

[jj221]

Cathedral seems to be fairly honest but I've only focused on the cracks there. There seems to be a number of hairy face climbs that I want no part of. My bolt clipping friends tell me Rumney is fair- I've never been. For East Coast Sandbags Seneca, The Daks, Looking Glass and Whitesides all seem to produce a high level of terror.

[Uncle_Tricky]

While it's possible to generalize about different areas, I've found the ratings tend often to reflect the character of the first ascentionists. Sometimes the person who did the FA is a better indication of the difficulty of the climb (relative to the grade) than what area the climb happens to be in. For example, if you're doing a Layton Kor climb, it pays to remember that the guy who originally rated it was a manic 6'6" bricklayer with hands the size of George Foreman.

 

Some areas have a longer historical traditions and powerful personalities, and perhaps in those cases the original ratings are more respected more and less likely to be changed? Especially in the case of "classic" climbs, maybe people are more hesitant to change the grade? Maybe these are the ones that become "testpieces" in the area for the grade? Then again, many of the old school climbs have been re-rated several times (always higher) in an effort to create "consistency" and the FA's original grade is long gone and forgotten.

 

Which begs the question: to what extent is the "sandbag scale" of these different areas attributable to the character of the individual climbers who put up the FAs? To what extent is the "sandbag scale" more a result of the guidebook authors who, in some cases, take it upon themselves to regrade climbs?

 

In other cases, the authors of the guidebooks are also the FAs on many of the climbs in the guide, which reminds me of a relevent quote: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

[chucK]

The character of the FA'er has more weight on a less travelled climb. The more frequented ones get "dumbed down" a bit with the consensus. For example, on the complete N Ridge of Stuart the 5.9 crack on the lower ridge, seemed true 5.9 maybe a bit sandbagged (Beckey says 5.8/9), while the Gendarme, though rated 5.9 was definitely not as hard. Only the "offwidth" fist crack pitch was truly 5.9 and a pretty easy one at that. Perhaps that one is a bit airbagged so the hordes that go up there won't be getting themselves in trouble. If they called it a 5.8, then climbers maxed on 5.8 might be getting in a pretty precarious situation way up there.