chucK Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 So, since the CC.com day is slow enough that DFA's query on nutz minutiae can get a fairly rollicking response... How about you galz/guyz giving me your views on Valley ratings as gauged by Index ratings? Last night, Mattp (under the influence of an unknown volume of beer) told me that the ratings are comparable and, if anything, Index was a bit harder. On the other hand, there was some guy down at the Rock one day who seemed to get scared just talking about climbing in the Valley. He said a 5.8 in the Valley was like 10b at Index. His GF was backing him up. So what say you Index-Valley vets? Valley virgins wanna know! Quote
Mr._Natural Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 (edited) index=sandbag valley=honest squish=giveaway of course there are exceptions... Edited February 26, 2003 by Mr._Natural Quote
TimL Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 Good topic. I agree with Mattp. It seems like Index ratings are more difficult than Yosemite. It seems to me Index has more difficult/sandbagged individual technical moves and features but the valley rating are harder in terms of length and sustained character. Example, Godzilla has a couple crux moves and a couple good rests but not sustained. I felt the second pitch or Reeds Direct (long 5.9 crack you can see from the road) and Jo-Jo , alternative start to the Prow I think, are sustained and although an easier technically in the grade they have the same sustained hard moves from beginning to end. Wallstein should have a good opinion on this one. Quote
freeclimb9 Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 By definition, the Valley is the touchstone by which all other YDS rated climbs are compared. In my limited experience with Index, the ratings are pretty similar (but I've assumed that high star ratings infer a sustained quality to the climbs). BTW, IMHO Squamish is a bit soft. But as long as ratings are consistent in a given climbing area, does it matter what the numbers are? Do numbers matter? Quote
chucK Posted February 26, 2003 Author Posted February 26, 2003 freeclimb9 said: But as long as ratings are consistent in a given climbing area, does it matter what the numbers are? Do numbers matter? It matters if you've never climbed there, but are trying to figure out what would be good things to shoot for. Quote
RuMR Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 They do matter if you're trying to gauge what you should jump on the 1st time you arrive at a destination... Quote
freeclimb9 Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 RuMR said: They do matter if you're trying to gauge what you should jump on the 1st time you arrive at a destination... Ha! Go for aesthetics, and screw the grade! Quote
specialed Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 Totally depends on the climb. I don't think you can generalize the ratings b/w valley, index, and squamish. There's sandbags at all 3 places and light ratings at all 3 places. Of course, there's only 3 grades at index: 10a, 11a, and fuckin hard. Quote
fern Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 I've hardly climbed at either Index or Yosemite (like 4 pitches each place). But my impression was that for short craggin'-type routes Yosemite isn't much different than Squamish, Index is burlier. Quote
snoboy Posted February 26, 2003 Posted February 26, 2003 My opinion: I think grades are always sandbags when you are new to an area. I would love to see some of you smiff types on a few of the "mid 10" squamish slabs! New kinds of climbing, and new kinds of rock always mess us up for awhile. Getting used to big long exposed routes, or short hard routes makes people squeal that the routes are sandbagged! I think the real value of grades is to give people an idea of relative stuff in the area. It is idealistic to think that they will seamlessly go from one area to an other. Of course Skaha is an exception to this whole discussion! Quote
RuMR Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 mid 10 slabs at squamish feel like mid 10 slabs...what's your point?? Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 RuMR said: mid 10 slabs at squamish feel like mid 10 slabs...what's your point?? Mid-.10 slabs always feel like solid .11+! Quote
erik Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 TimL said: Good topic. Wallstein should have a good opinion on this one. too bad that worthless sack is off to australia for two months! i have a climbed a fair amount at all 3 places and i think the difference breaks down between each individual grade as opposed to the whole area in general. in reality, i see .10 and take it at that. and like specialed said all the areas have their ups and downs. chuck you will style the valley! Quote
Thinker Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 IMHO, A lot of it has to do with when the climb was put up, who rated it, and several other factors. Back in the day in Yosemite when no one could imagine a climb being harder than 5.10, the easier routes were often sandbagged. Thus climbs in the 5.6 to 5.8 range that were put up in the 60's and early 70s are often tough for the grade as we know it today. The newer climbs tend to fall more in line with what we're used to. In my opinion, that's why people freak so much about Yosemite ratings....they start on a 'nice' 'classic' 5.6 or 5.7 to warm up on, end up getting spanked, and don't ever try any of the newer climbs. Quote
Bill_Simpkins Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 After you get used to the extremely polished cracks and holds in the Valley, it's not to bad. None of the ratings suprised me. For the exception of GNS at Index, I think the Index ratings are a bit harder. Quote
Lambone Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 In my opinion, the ratings are about the same, but yosemite pitches are often more sustained. Imagine a 200ft Gozilla... Quote
snoboy Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 RuMR said: mid 10 slabs at squamish feel like mid 10 slabs...what's your point?? My point is that they feel like mid 10 slabs, not like mid 10 smiff routes! Duh! Quote
Miloshk_Antonopov Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 ratings of american climbs are soft. yosemite and other american places are not hard for russian climber. if climber trains hard these ratings are not to be concerned about. every day i am running five miles and eating four times meals of red meat and climbing much. americans are drinking their starbuck and eating crybabie sugar cookies to make them feel good after missing redpoint. this is not the way to train for strong climber. Quote
Attitude Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 Miloshk_Antonopov said: ratings of american climbs are soft. yosemite and other american places are not hard for russian climber. if climber trains hard these ratings are not to be concerned about. every day i am running five miles and eating four times meals of red meat and climbing much. americans are drinking their starbuck and eating crybabie sugar cookies to make them feel good after missing redpoint. this is not the way to train for strong climber. Have you met Polish Bob? Quote
Miloshk_Antonopov Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 i am not familiar with polanders or american. i am russian living in canada and climbing at squamish everyday. routes are not so soft here. not soft like in america but not hard like in Urals. when you are running five miles everyday and eating four meals red meat and climbing hard everyday in approach shoes you will no what hard climbing is to. Quote
gapertimmy Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 i had a veggie burger for dinner, jury is out, i'm a pussy Quote
RuMR Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 (edited) Yeah...but they feel much softer than 5.10 slab climbing anywhere else in the world (like stone mountain, great falls, yosemite, etc.)...DUH!! As far as that goes, they don't feel any worse than smiff 10's...which, by the way, aren't true slab climbs, now are they?? They are more face routes than friction climbing, so why the comparison? Of course, if you've never climbed friction b4, its gonna feel insecure...most people take to face climbing better than friction climbing at first... its more natural...BUT it doesn't mean that the ratings are softer or harder... Edited February 27, 2003 by RuMR Quote
Wallstein Posted March 26, 2003 Posted March 26, 2003 erik said: too bad that worthless sack is off to australia for two months! Yo bitch who you callin a worthless sack of shit. You fuckin washed up wanabee secretery... There is no difference between the 3 places mentioned....Everyplace has hard 5.9 and 5.10 and easy 5.11 I can't really tell any difference between these places. Thats my month late opinion Quote
allthumbs Posted March 26, 2003 Posted March 26, 2003 Wallstein said: erik said: too bad that worthless sack is off to australia for two months! Yo bitch who you callin a worthless sack of shit. You fuckin washed up wanabee secretery... There is no difference between the 3 places mentioned....Everyplace has hard 5.9 and 5.10 and easy 5.11 I can't really tell any difference between these places. Thats my month late opinion No shit. I heard Erik was in sales now or something. I'm here to tell ya, he couldn't sell pussy on a troop train. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.