Subjectiveness of grading

[snoboy]

Sloth_Man said:

I think the subjectiveness of grades doesn't get enough attention. I've seen a lot of taller guys reach right past hard spots then come away saying the climb was 5.whatever. But I know it was harder for me, and yet still gets the same 5. whatever grade.

 

Cracks are really subjective. I'm good at wedging stubby body parts into cracks, but if you're small or boney a crack I think is easy could be real hard. Small cracks are the worst. For me every finger crack is 5.impossible, but for a girl the same crack might be more doable. For example the Incredible (not-a)handcrack was real hard for me, but someone with smaller hands would get killer jams and call it 'not to bad'.

 

Yeah grades are subjective, but they're like colors. Sure you're green might be my orange, but as long as we agree to call it green then everythings Ok. It doesn't matter so much what the objective truth is as much as where we fit in to the scheme of things so we can avoid getting in over our head.

 

Discuss.

 

I think sometimes it is good to be tall, and other times it is bad. This means that really grades should even out in the end because they are supposed to concensus grades.

[Dru]

Do you mean consensus

 

If you have good technique, your height will not matter. Except if you are short and have really big fingers, and lets say, a minus 9 ape index, then it sucks to be you. But the one-armed climber doesnt get to say "That 5.8 is 5.11c for ME" so why should you just because you are tall/ fat/ whatever?

[fern]

5.whatever equals 5.whatever regardless ... but is my experience on a 5.whatever harder than yours by some objective measure? this is the boring unanswerable question

 

I want catbirdseat to tell everyone his fractal theory.

[snoboy]

I want fern to explain the binary grading system.

[Dru]

its all 5.sent until you fail

[catbirdseat]

fern said:

5.whatever equals 5.whatever regardless ... but is my experience on a 5.whatever harder than yours by some objective measure? this is the boring unanswerable question

 

I want catbirdseat to tell everyone his fractal theory.

Fractal geometry is found throughout nature. It is found in the trees, in water courses and in rock faces. If you extend fractal geometry to rock climbing the reasoning goes like this. As the scale decreases, the number of big holds decrease, but the number of small holds increases. A smaller climber can make use of smaller holds than a larger climber. Therefore, ON AVERAGE, the larger climber does not have an advantage over the smaller climber. The net number of USABLE holds is the same. That isn't to say that on a given route the moves might not be easier for a tall climber than for a short one. This is because routes are not chosen AT RANDOM, but are selected by a climber of a given height. A route pioneered by a short climber, especially with small fingers might be found to be more difficult by taller climbers.

 

[Gaston_Lagaffe]

All I have to say is that no matter how early in my life I would have started to climb, and no matter how hard I would have trained, I would NEVER be able to free the Nose like a certain Miss Hill. A heigh difference of 1.5 feet is of zero help. At the same time a person with smaller hands is able to use holds that are just too small for my fingers. That's one of the things that I love about climbing, My 5'2" friend can send routes I can't, and I can send routes she can't.

 

Cheers

[Szyjakowski]

its all roped up bouldering.... SHeesh!

[Dru]

but without sit starts

[Szyjakowski]

Dru said:

but without sit starts

DOH!

sorry i forgot that part

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Dru said:

but without sit starts

 

What? Didn't you get the memo? If you ain't been sit startin' you ain't been getting the send. Back to the crags, slack-a-nadian!

[chelle]

Szyjakowski said:

Dru said:

but without sit starts

DOH!

sorry i forgot that part

 

Maybe you just need some more creativity. You could probably get sit starts on pitches that begin on a ledge.

[Off_White]

Great theory CBS, probably explains why ants have it so much easier despite being quite short.

[catbirdseat]

Off_White said:

Great theory CBS, probably explains why ants have it so much easier despite being quite short.

Actually, I don't think that fractal geometry explains the ability of ants to walk on walls and their relative strength. The wall walking has to do with their weight relative to surface area. Strength has more to do with having an exoskeleton and being small.

[chucK]

ehmmic said:

Szyjakowski said:

Dru said:

but without sit starts

DOH!

sorry i forgot that part

 

Maybe you just need some more creativity. You could probably get sit starts on pitches that begin on a ledge.

 

Every pitch that has a hanging belay below it is a sit start.

[chelle]

catbirdseat said:

Off_White said:

Great theory CBS, probably explains why ants have it so much easier despite being quite short.

Actually, I don't think that fractal geometry explains the ability of ants to walk on walls and their relative strength. The wall walking has to do with their weight relative to surface area. Strength has more to do with having an exoskeleton and being small.

 

So are lizards just really strong compared to their weight? and what about those crazy moves I've seen snaffles do near the bases of climbs? Maybe they have secret practice sessions to impress us "real" climbers.

[Cpt.Caveman]

ehmmic said:

catbirdseat said:

Off_White said:

Great theory CBS, probably explains why ants have it so much easier despite being quite short.

Actually, I don't think that fractal geometry explains the ability of ants to walk on walls and their relative strength. The wall walking has to do with their weight relative to surface area. Strength has more to do with having an exoskeleton and being small.

 

So are lizards just really strong compared to their weight? and what about those crazy moves I've seen snaffles do near the bases of climbs? Maybe they have secret practice sessions to impress us "real" climbers.

 

Those are not likely true snaffles. I think they are another similar breed. I made friends with one while dropping some Bart Simpson and chuggin whisky then he lead up City Park free for me. I still couldn't free it though. I'll work on it next time

[Szyjakowski]

ehmmic said:

catbirdseat said:

Off_White said:

Great theory CBS, probably explains why ants have it so much easier despite being quite short.

Actually, I don't think that fractal geometry explains the ability of ants to walk on walls and their relative strength. The wall walking has to do with their weight relative to surface area. Strength has more to do with having an exoskeleton and being small.

 

So are lizards just really strong compared to their weight? and what about those crazy moves I've seen snaffles do near the bases of climbs? Maybe they have secret practice sessions to impress us "real" climbers.

have you seen GOATS move on stone..

Shitdamn I want their rubber on my feet.

[Jens]

Great topic

 

My two cents:

Overhanging Faces =better be short

Overhanging cracks = doesn't matter

Vertical faces = better to be tall

Slabs = better to be tall

limestone = better to be short

granite = usually better to be tall

hard offwidthing = better to be smaller

snow slogging = better to be tall

extreme high altitude = better to be small

 

[fern]

Jens said:

Slabs = better to be tall

 

why do you think this?

[E-rock]

To get those just-out-of-reach potato-chip edges with your fingernails.

[chucK]

I think Jens is thinking of the face-climbing aspect of slab climbing. With rare exception, you do use "holds". It's just that the holds are just more sticky spots. The common move on slabs is rocking on to a hold then pressing it out. It's an advantage to be able to reach that foot further up and around. I'd think being tall would help this reach, though maybe not if the length between your knee and foot were much longer than between your hip and knee.

 

For pure friction climbing (everything is a hold/nothing is a hold) height probably doesn't matter.

 

 

[Dru]

maybe not if the length between your knee and foot were much longer than between your hip and knee.

 

wha'd ya know chucK invented a new stat

what do you call that, giraffe index?

[EWolfe]

Szyjakowski said:

ehmmic said:

catbirdseat said:

Off_White said:

Great theory CBS, probably explains why ants have it so much easier despite being quite short.

Actually, I don't think that fractal geometry explains the ability of ants to walk on walls and their relative strength. The wall walking has to do with their weight relative to surface area. Strength has more to do with having an exoskeleton and being small.

 

So are lizards just really strong compared to their weight? and what about those crazy moves I've seen snaffles do near the bases of climbs? Maybe they have secret practice sessions to impress us "real" climbers.

have you seen GOATS move on stone..

Shitdamn I want their rubber on my feet.

 

A friend of mine, Zoltan, once saw a small ledge break under a goat on Snow Creek Wall. The goat started to plummet (it was about 50 feet up from the base), and it turned down and RAN DOWN THE WALL!! He said it sounded like machine-gun fire, the hooves were hitting the wall so fast!!

Anyway, the goat ran it out onto the base, where the front legs hit with an audible THUMP!, and then just looked around like it was no biggie...

 

Zoltan bowed and said: "Master!"

[fern]

obviously if the 'holds' are far apart then having extra reach helps. But I think an advantage to being shorter on slabs is that there is less leverage between your points of contact and your centre of gravity, also smaller fingers and feet can use more intermediate holds to good effect. dunno ... I'm pretty short but I have found many slab cruxes fairly cruisy where my taller friends have struggled a bit.