Biggest SandBag [Local Route]

[counterfeitfake]

IT WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING IN THE VALLEY BECAUSE GRANITE DOESN'T CRACK THAT WAY.

[Gary_Yngve]

there's a 40' route at Vantage to climber's right of Fat Man's Squeeze that I think is rated 10B and has a lot of slopers. To me, it felt harder than many Vantage 11As!

 

 

the 10A unprotected start to G-M (at Index) seems sandbagged, even on top-rope

[ivan]

who gives a shit what it would be in the valley? it'd still be karate crack, and it'd still suck

[pink]

I think it feels about the same as other 10a's in Index.

 

Enough said.....

 

 

It's a sight easier than Karate Crack (10a).

 

I disagree.....Karate Crack would be 5.9 in the Valley.....

 

what 5.10's have you climbed in the valley. i'd say outerlimits is as pumpy as karate crack and it's rated 10b (first pitch).

[eldiente]

IT WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING IN THE VALLEY BECAUSE GRANITE DOESN'T CRACK THAT WAY.

 

True that. Everyone always like to spout off about how if such and such route was in the Valley it'd be 5.6.

[pink]

valley schmalley

[Jens]

Anything at the LTW of index is sandbagged. That's cool though.

---------------

 

I love Karate crack. I really love all the climbing above it.

 

--------------

 

[mattp]

Anything at the LTW of index is sandbagged. That's cool though.

A lot of the traditional Washington crags were rated stiff. Outer Space was 5.8 or 5.8+ in the early guidebooks. Midway is way hard for 5.5. Even though it is only hard for a couple of moves, Libra is 5.10a. In more recent times, maybe folks are traveling more or maybe it is just grade inflation at work, but I don't think these climbs would be rated the same today. That is not "sandbagging," though. It is just local variation in ratings. Sandbagging is where somebody rates something "light" in thinking later climbers will be impressed at how they must have been a master because they thought it was "only 5.9." (OK, I realize that no "master" would admit to even climbing a 5.9. It is really sandbagging when they say it is "only 5.12b.")

[chucK]

-snip- I felt that the rating was entirely reasonable for a tr, but leading it left me feeling 10b, easily. -snip-

I normally don't play "pile on the new guy" but this statement bothers me, and I've been hearing a lot of this crap lately.

 

The rating of a climb has nothing to do with it's protection. It only has to do with the difficulty of a climb. The "R", "X", "PG13", or :: speak to the available protection.

 

If it feels 5.9 on toprope, it's 5.9. You don't need a harder grade in a book to lead it, you need bigger balls.

 

Let's get a bit real here instead of playing rating aesthetics semantic games.

 

Any sustained enduro route is going to be easier on toprope. The act of placing gear takes time and energy, which is more than an inconvenience when racing the pump.

[counterfeitfake]

-snip- I felt that the rating was entirely reasonable for a tr, but leading it left me feeling 10b, easily. -snip-

I normally don't play "pile on the new guy" but this statement bothers me, and I've been hearing a lot of this crap lately.

 

The rating of a climb has nothing to do with it's protection. It only has to do with the difficulty of a climb. The "R", "X", "PG13", or :: speak to the available protection.

 

If it feels 5.9 on toprope, it's 5.9. You don't need a harder grade in a book to lead it, you need bigger balls.

 

Let's get a bit real here instead of playing rating aesthetics semantic games.

 

Any sustained enduro route is going to be easier on toprope. The act of placing gear takes time and energy, which is more than an inconvenience when racing the pump.

 

And that is why a route cannot be boiled down into a number. That is why guidebooks have words in them besides the route name and grade. That is why topos say things like "sustained" or "pumpy" or "bold".

 

A route is not supposed to get a higher grade because every move is the same difficulty. A route does not change it's grade depending on how you are climbing it.

[chucK]

Sez you. Plenty of routes get higher grades in the guidebook because of the pump factor. Current route under discussion, Breakfast of Champions, is a classic example. One layback move to slot perfect jam and good foot, 5.9. The rest is technically easier.

[ashw_justin]

Sandbags don't exist; only sandbaggers.

Grades don't exist; only graders.

Climbs don't exist; only climbers.

Use your illusion.

[fenderfour]

Routes are rated by the FA party. A majority of FA's were on lead. Therefore, the grade listed is for a lead climb.

 

Using your flawed logic, routes should be downgraded for toprope since you do not have to place gear. Celestial Groove is a 5.9+ on lead, but only a 5.8 on TR. Breakfast of champions is a 5.10a on lead, and a 5.9 on TR.

 

I've been on 5.8's that have spanked me. Instead of debating the numbers, I try to get my friends to lead them so they too, can get spanked on hard "easy" climbs.

[kevbone]

Good logic for route setters!

 

 

When is doubt…….sandbag!

 

[counterfeitfake]

Sez you. Plenty of routes get higher grades in the guidebook because of the pump factor. Current route under discussion, Breakfast of Champions, is a classic example. One layback move to slot perfect jam and good foot, 5.9. The rest is technically easier.

 

I know that this happens. It doesn't make it correct. We have a system, and the rule of the system is supposedly that a route gets it's grade from the hardest move on it. I am not particularly invested in this system, except that it is what we are all ostensibly using. We should be consistent.

 

If the YDS isn't good enough, and we feel the need to compress more information into a grading system, we will end up with a horrible clusterfuck like British grades. I would much rather read: "Trezlar: 5.9, sustained. This striking dihedral is vertical or overhanging for it's entire 100 foot length, and has few moves easier than the grade it is given." than "Trezlar: Hard Very Difficult 5a."

 

And it's beside-the-point quibbling, but isn't BOC given 5.10a by almost everybody?

[ashw_justin]

Actually I rate it 5.BoC

[counterfeitfake]

Your rating system is intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Gary_Yngve]

if you upgrade BoC, then you'd also need to upgrade a number of other pitches at Index... Libra, HoC p3, D-H p2... which are all 10A.

[kevbone]

 

We have a system, and the rule of the system is supposedly that a route gets it's grade from the hardest move on it.

 

 

Uh……that is the old way. I really don’t think it is accurate. 100 feet of solid 10.a jamming is going to feel harder than the single move of 10.a. Therefore newer climbs are taking into account the length of the climb. I prefer this style of grading because its gives more of an accurate view of what it feels like to lead without falling from ground to chains.

 

There is a climb at my local crag called “The Crumbing”. The FA gave the grade to be 5.12a. He has put up over 60 climbs in his life and knows what 12.a feels like.

 

The route has no 5.12a move on it. It starts with a V3 moves just to get your feet off the ground then another 3 to 4 hard moves to get to a good hold. He calls these opening moves about 11+. Then another 17 to 18 more moves of solid 11.a/b moves with an 11.c overhanging finish. The entire climb overhangs about 12 – 15 feet.

 

He feels if you lead it from ground to chains without falling, it would be 12.a.

 

I agree.

 

[counterfeitfake]

seriously what are you guys talking about

[chucK]

The YDS works fine. One just must understand that its usage has been allowed to wander from the absurdly impractical strict "hardest move" criterion. I think most people understand this, hence are not baffled by the grading of BoC. Only esoteric definition clingers will be confused/upset when a route grade takes into account the sustained nature of a climb.

 

The hardest move criterion would only be useful if one was really concerned that routes have the same grade when lead or toproped. But I think most people are past that. They understand that it is almost always more difficult to lead than to toprope. Different grading system would be necessary only for the most uncomprehending.

[mattp]

The hardest move criteria is what makes the system make sense, ChucK. The fact that it is not applied absolutely consistently and there are some (really very few) routes that are given an extra grade for their sustained nature doesn't change the fact that the system really is defined so as to rate the hardest move. Otherwise, how could you compare a 40 foot climb in Icicle Creek with an alpine rock climb? We use the YDS and a secondary rating for length/commitment factor.

[ashw_justin]

seriously what are you guys talking about

I don't even see the topos anymore. All I see now is slab, handcrack, chimney...

[chucK]

Well you guys better get your acts together on all those 5.9-10b friction climbs in Darrington. The only thing that differentiates the cruxes (after which the route is graded) is the number of tenuous no-handhold foot placements needed to get to the next stance:

one tenuous foothold,no hands- 5.9

two tenuous footholds,no hands- 5.10a

three tenuous footholds,no hands- 5.10b

 

They're all the same move, but you give higher grades if there's more of them in a row.

 

I think it's a good system, BTW.

 

[counterfeitfake]

Having only climbed Dreamer, I am not eminently qualified to talk about Darrington grades. But I can say that I think you would call Dreamer a 5.10b.