Dru Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 at smith, they did downgrade when sticky rubber came along, for instance sunshine dihedral went from 12a to 11d.... they should do that for ice routes too! like if it was WI 6 with terrordactyls and strap on crampons it would be 4+ now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 quote: Originally posted by Peter Puget: Dru - Sad to hear Slipping Clutch is dirty. I climbed it when it was new and very clean. It was the first route on which I used Fires to climb and the new rubber (compared to EBs that is) was amazing.The OW is not thru a roof and does not resemble any of the OW you mention. The route arches to right and becomes almost an arm bar undercling. (as if that makes much sense)I guess there might be various way to climb it tho. someone might have recently recleaned it actually. i hear you need some rps and tcu's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Parker Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 I like Will's rating system combined with Cavey's it's all 5.8 until you fall. Personally I think trad and sport almost need 2 different systems. Clipping bolts is a lot different than hanging out, determing what piece to pull off your rack, seeing if it fits, trusting if it will hold a fall and then moving on. The ratings are supposed to be for the actual moves only, but climbing is not just that. I did a 5.7- at Red Rocks. Wy wife did a 5.4d at Peshastin once in bare feet! My six year old son is blabbing he did a 5.10 because he started up one but didn't even make it to the crux. Man, do I have some explaining to do or what! Maybe we should adapt the British system, then it would all be meaningless! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 8, 2001 Author Share Posted November 8, 2001 Dru, wasn't Sunshine originally graded 11d? As far as the protection goes on Slipping Clutch my only memory is how sticky the shoes felt. I must have some sort of perception problem because there is no way I can accurately rate pitch from its base. For example: if I was placed at the base of ROTC, I couldn't tell you only from visual inspection if it was 11a or 12a. Here is an Icicle example: looking at the route Lazy Boy (to me at least) the bottom appeared harder than the top. When the bottom turned out to be harder than the guidebook indicates I assumed that the ratings were switched on the topo. Wrong assumption. There is also no way I could rate the Blind Faith pitch Wallstien mentioned or even Psychopath on Snow Creek Wall from their bases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 PP, I have no idea if Sunshine was originally 11d or not, I'm just going by what Watts book says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 Brining this one up again. Finally climbed "You get what you deserve" yesterday. Supposedly 10b OW at Little Si. I can't see why they bolted it first. Also no way is it .10b! If you like OW this one is short and good. Probably the true rating is around 5.9. Easier than Damnation Crack and the close by Mambo Jambo.... No I am not sandbagging either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 12, 2001 Author Share Posted November 12, 2001 I agree with you CC and would even go so far as to say that 38/Si ratings in general are a bit on the light side. The main problem I see with that is that it gives people a false sense of what they can do. From the lack of responses adressing the original question, I am guessing that ratings seem to be a point of debate everywhere. The only difference between Si/38 and some other areas is that there seems to be an area wide bias applied to the routes at Si/38 rather than the more random assortment of errors found at most other areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambone Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 I don't think Aborigine is .11b... It is mostly all jugs with two crimpy moves. But I'm glad that I can say that i've done at least one 11b! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 quote: Originally posted by lambone: I don't think Aborigine is .11b... It is mostly all jugs with two crimpy moves. But I'm glad that I can say that i've done at least one 11b! I tried to do that f*%$#er twice on TR and denied with lots of flailing and whining. I still have no 11b or 11a on my belt Maybe I should get focused and go to gymn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambone Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 Steep bouldering in the gym has helped my ab muscles, definately key on Aborigonie. Endurance helps too. Shake out and rest as much as you can along the way. Once you get past that first crux it's cake until the last move. Look for the no hands rest on that small broken ledge 3/4 of the way up! Good luck, peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 Aborigine's 11b. It's on par with any other 11b I've ever done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 It's above 5.8 cuz I fell It might be 5.9 for some time too (everything that I cannot climb gets the 5.9 rating) Yeah I used the no hands and still no love. I need training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 13, 2001 Author Share Posted November 13, 2001 Sexual - Are you saying that every 5.11b you have ever climbed has been rated (at least from your experience) correctly? None have been significantly easier or harder than the rest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haireball Posted November 13, 2001 Share Posted November 13, 2001 recommended reading for everyone paying any attention to this thread: Alfred Korczybski, "Science and Sanity". Korczybski, a colleague of Einstein at Princeton, is known as the "father of semantics". "Science and Sanity" was his "magnum opus", and illuminates the phenomenon of people speaking a common language, yet being unable to clearly understand one another... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 13, 2001 Author Share Posted November 13, 2001 Interesting Haireball! Please give us some examples in this thread illustrating the phenomenon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.