Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
chucK

Yosemite ratings?

Recommended Posts

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do matter if you're trying to gauge what you should jump on the 1st time you arrive at a destination...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

 

bigdrink.gifbigdrink.gifbigdrink.gifbigdrink.gifbigdrink.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the ratings are about the same, but yosemite pitches are often more sustained. Imagine a 200ft Gozilla...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! yellaf.gifboxing_smiley.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by RuMR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×