|
camhead
Oct 29, 2009, 4:08 PM
Post #26 of 96
(2281 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
tks wrote: The commitment in trying a 5.10 on gear in a new place is totally different from trying a 5.10 bolted route at a new place. I don't know about your experience, but it certainly jumps out at me. Tom
This is definitely true. I was discussing this with a friend the other day, about how difficult it is to be a truly consistent onsight climber of a certain grade at ALL areas of North America. I can think of plenty of 5.10s that I would definitely not onsight right now.
I would be willing to bet that not even most pro climbers consistently onsight 11+ gear through all areas (everything from Vedauwoo offwidth to Tuolomne slab to Gunks roofs to Creek finger cracks to North Carolina quartzite.
|
|
|
|
|
dan4geng
Oct 29, 2009, 4:23 PM
Post #27 of 96
(2274 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2006
Posts: 64
|
camhead wrote: angry wrote: dan4geng wrote: Come on now... All forms of climbing translate to eachother... From Sketchy Runout Alpine right down to bouldering an I find that the climbing wall really helped me climb big peaks in Peru. I also found that climbing overhanging offwidths helped me learn how to climb finger cracks. I once trained to climb El Cap in a day by bouldering. Actually, a friend of mine made the observation that sometimes, a climber will decide that he wants to be "that guy" who climbs really hard offwidths better than everyone else in his crew. So he'll train offwidths really hard, and in about a year, he'll get such great core strength that other things like finger cracks will start feeling easy. At which point, he'll realize that offwidths are boring, and start climbing other stuff, only a lot better than before (not that I've ever known anyone like that, heh). So, in that sense, yeah, diversity. But still, no amount of training face will make you a better crack climber, or vice versa.
"no amount of training face will make you a better crack climber, or vice versa"
You're technique is obviously not going to benefit. But your Lockoff strength will. Stonger arms, better endurance and more power will make you a better climber in any genre.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 29, 2009, 4:30 PM
Post #28 of 96
(2266 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
lena_chita wrote: granite_grrl wrote: And lets face, the Gunks really isn't that bad. It's a totally different style than what most tradies are used to so a lot of people cry about it. People who climb at the Gunks like this 'cause it lets them puff out their chests and call themselves hardmen/women. Hah, you beat me to it! Yes, Gunks grades are stiff- but not THAT stiff. And I don't understand why people who climb at Gunks ( or JTree, or other stiffly-graded places) are so keen at mentioning it right and left. I'd say that it is tricky gear placements that make Gunks hard, not the moves per se. I have not noticed the moves being significantly harder than the moves of the same grade elsewhere, they are just different kind of moves... A 5.12 climber from any climbing area, no matter how soft, will be able to climb 5.9 at the Gunks. The reverse, however, is not true-- e.i. Gunks 5.9 climber is not going to crush 5.12 at, say, RRG... Maybe a Gunks 5.9 climber will be a 5.10 climber elsewhere. O.K., big deal...
Lena,
You and Paul don't necessarily see the Gunks as having "stiff" ratings simply because you both climb as hard as you do. Once you get past 5.10 (i.e. 5.11s and 5.12s) the climbs are quite comparable to 5.11s and 5.12s found at many other climbing areas. The reputation for "stiff" or sandbagged ratings in the Gunks comes from the ratings of the older (and easier) climbs. There are 5.4s and 5.5s in the Gunks that could easily be 5.7 or 5.8 in other areas. It is also possible that you didn't notice this, again because you climb at a much higher grade. However, this is definitely something that a 5.6 leader will notice.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Oct 29, 2009, 4:40 PM
Post #29 of 96
(2257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
Even within an area the grades aren't consistent. You really need to be a student of the guidebook to figure out the subtleties of the sandbagging system.
When I go to a new area I start off easy and go from there but of course Squamish is known to be soft and since that is my benchmark I take that into account.
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Oct 29, 2009, 4:51 PM
Post #30 of 96
(2251 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
curt wrote: lena_chita wrote: granite_grrl wrote: And lets face, the Gunks really isn't that bad. It's a totally different style than what most tradies are used to so a lot of people cry about it. People who climb at the Gunks like this 'cause it lets them puff out their chests and call themselves hardmen/women. Hah, you beat me to it! Yes, Gunks grades are stiff- but not THAT stiff. And I don't understand why people who climb at Gunks ( or JTree, or other stiffly-graded places) are so keen at mentioning it right and left. I'd say that it is tricky gear placements that make Gunks hard, not the moves per se. I have not noticed the moves being significantly harder than the moves of the same grade elsewhere, they are just different kind of moves... A 5.12 climber from any climbing area, no matter how soft, will be able to climb 5.9 at the Gunks. The reverse, however, is not true-- e.i. Gunks 5.9 climber is not going to crush 5.12 at, say, RRG... Maybe a Gunks 5.9 climber will be a 5.10 climber elsewhere. O.K., big deal... Lena, You and Paul don't necessarily see the Gunks as having "stiff" ratings simply because you both climb as hard as you do. Once you get past 5.10 (i.e. 5.11s and 5.12s) the climbs are quite comparable to 5.11s and 5.12s found at many other climbing areas. The reputation for "stiff" or sandbagged ratings in the Gunks comes from the ratings of the older (and easier) climbs. There are 5.4s and 5.5s in the Gunks that could easily be 5.7 or 5.8 in other areas. It is also possible that you didn't notice this, again because you climb at a much higher grade. However, this is definitely something that a 5.6 leader will notice. Curt
yup, weird.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 29, 2009, 5:05 PM
Post #31 of 96
(2242 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
granite_grrl wrote: curt wrote: lena_chita wrote: granite_grrl wrote: And lets face, the Gunks really isn't that bad. It's a totally different style than what most tradies are used to so a lot of people cry about it. People who climb at the Gunks like this 'cause it lets them puff out their chests and call themselves hardmen/women. Hah, you beat me to it! Yes, Gunks grades are stiff- but not THAT stiff. And I don't understand why people who climb at Gunks ( or JTree, or other stiffly-graded places) are so keen at mentioning it right and left. I'd say that it is tricky gear placements that make Gunks hard, not the moves per se. I have not noticed the moves being significantly harder than the moves of the same grade elsewhere, they are just different kind of moves... A 5.12 climber from any climbing area, no matter how soft, will be able to climb 5.9 at the Gunks. The reverse, however, is not true-- e.i. Gunks 5.9 climber is not going to crush 5.12 at, say, RRG... Maybe a Gunks 5.9 climber will be a 5.10 climber elsewhere. O.K., big deal... Lena, You and Paul don't necessarily see the Gunks as having "stiff" ratings simply because you both climb as hard as you do. Once you get past 5.10 (i.e. 5.11s and 5.12s) the climbs are quite comparable to 5.11s and 5.12s found at many other climbing areas. The reputation for "stiff" or sandbagged ratings in the Gunks comes from the ratings of the older (and easier) climbs. There are 5.4s and 5.5s in the Gunks that could easily be 5.7 or 5.8 in other areas. It is also possible that you didn't notice this, again because you climb at a much higher grade. However, this is definitely something that a 5.6 leader will notice. Curt Really? It's weird how I lead 5.7 - 5.9 at the Gunks and they feel like 5.7s, 5.8s and 5.9s to me. yup, weird.
If you climb in the Gunks a lot, that's normal because those are the climbs you typically associate with those grades--if not, you're more of an exception to the rule. Pat yourself on the back for being hard-core. 
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 29, 2009, 5:06 PM
Post #32 of 96
(2240 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
granite_grrl wrote: curt wrote: lena_chita wrote: granite_grrl wrote: And lets face, the Gunks really isn't that bad. It's a totally different style than what most tradies are used to so a lot of people cry about it. People who climb at the Gunks like this 'cause it lets them puff out their chests and call themselves hardmen/women. Hah, you beat me to it! Yes, Gunks grades are stiff- but not THAT stiff. And I don't understand why people who climb at Gunks ( or JTree, or other stiffly-graded places) are so keen at mentioning it right and left. I'd say that it is tricky gear placements that make Gunks hard, not the moves per se. I have not noticed the moves being significantly harder than the moves of the same grade elsewhere, they are just different kind of moves... A 5.12 climber from any climbing area, no matter how soft, will be able to climb 5.9 at the Gunks. The reverse, however, is not true-- e.i. Gunks 5.9 climber is not going to crush 5.12 at, say, RRG... Maybe a Gunks 5.9 climber will be a 5.10 climber elsewhere. O.K., big deal... Lena, You and Paul don't necessarily see the Gunks as having "stiff" ratings simply because you both climb as hard as you do. Once you get past 5.10 (i.e. 5.11s and 5.12s) the climbs are quite comparable to 5.11s and 5.12s found at many other climbing areas. The reputation for "stiff" or sandbagged ratings in the Gunks comes from the ratings of the older (and easier) climbs. There are 5.4s and 5.5s in the Gunks that could easily be 5.7 or 5.8 in other areas. It is also possible that you didn't notice this, again because you climb at a much higher grade. However, this is definitely something that a 5.6 leader will notice. Curt Really? It's weird how I lead 5.7 - 5.9 at the Gunks and they feel like 5.7s, 5.8s and 5.9s to me. yup, weird.
But what other areas do you climb at? If you primarily climb at the Gunks, then the Gunks is your yardstick.
For the record, I find North Conway, NH to be stiffer than the Gunks. But then again, its much different climbing.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Oct 29, 2009, 5:11 PM
Post #33 of 96
(2231 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
camhead wrote: But still, no amount of training face will make you a better crack climber, or vice versa.
this is true for beginners and maybe intermediates. but not so much at elite levels for folks on big climbs.
ueli steck trains by sport climbing and running. not many splitters in the berner oberland. he only booked a couple weeks at the creek to round into shape for technical jamming before he did golden gate.
it's true, lots of "pros" are basically specialists in some narrow sub-genre of cragging. but to be an elite alpinist demands a consistent 5.11 and higher on-sight ability on all types of rock, weather, moves and gear.
|
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Oct 29, 2009, 5:16 PM
Post #34 of 96
(2229 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: granite_grrl wrote: curt wrote: lena_chita wrote: granite_grrl wrote: And lets face, the Gunks really isn't that bad. It's a totally different style than what most tradies are used to so a lot of people cry about it. People who climb at the Gunks like this 'cause it lets them puff out their chests and call themselves hardmen/women. Hah, you beat me to it! Yes, Gunks grades are stiff- but not THAT stiff. And I don't understand why people who climb at Gunks ( or JTree, or other stiffly-graded places) are so keen at mentioning it right and left. I'd say that it is tricky gear placements that make Gunks hard, not the moves per se. I have not noticed the moves being significantly harder than the moves of the same grade elsewhere, they are just different kind of moves... A 5.12 climber from any climbing area, no matter how soft, will be able to climb 5.9 at the Gunks. The reverse, however, is not true-- e.i. Gunks 5.9 climber is not going to crush 5.12 at, say, RRG... Maybe a Gunks 5.9 climber will be a 5.10 climber elsewhere. O.K., big deal... Lena, You and Paul don't necessarily see the Gunks as having "stiff" ratings simply because you both climb as hard as you do. Once you get past 5.10 (i.e. 5.11s and 5.12s) the climbs are quite comparable to 5.11s and 5.12s found at many other climbing areas. The reputation for "stiff" or sandbagged ratings in the Gunks comes from the ratings of the older (and easier) climbs. There are 5.4s and 5.5s in the Gunks that could easily be 5.7 or 5.8 in other areas. It is also possible that you didn't notice this, again because you climb at a much higher grade. However, this is definitely something that a 5.6 leader will notice. Curt Really? It's weird how I lead 5.7 - 5.9 at the Gunks and they feel like 5.7s, 5.8s and 5.9s to me. yup, weird. But what other areas do you climb at? If you primarily climb at the Gunks, then the Gunks is your yardstick. For the record, I find North Conway, NH to be stiffer than the Gunks. But then again, its much different climbing. Josh
|
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Oct 29, 2009, 5:51 PM
Post #36 of 96
(2199 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
Yes, that looks like a 9 to me ...
|
|
|
|
|
granite_grrl
Oct 29, 2009, 5:51 PM
Post #37 of 96
(2196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 15084
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: granite_grrl wrote: curt wrote: lena_chita wrote: granite_grrl wrote: And lets face, the Gunks really isn't that bad. It's a totally different style than what most tradies are used to so a lot of people cry about it. People who climb at the Gunks like this 'cause it lets them puff out their chests and call themselves hardmen/women. Hah, you beat me to it! Yes, Gunks grades are stiff- but not THAT stiff. And I don't understand why people who climb at Gunks ( or JTree, or other stiffly-graded places) are so keen at mentioning it right and left. I'd say that it is tricky gear placements that make Gunks hard, not the moves per se. I have not noticed the moves being significantly harder than the moves of the same grade elsewhere, they are just different kind of moves... A 5.12 climber from any climbing area, no matter how soft, will be able to climb 5.9 at the Gunks. The reverse, however, is not true-- e.i. Gunks 5.9 climber is not going to crush 5.12 at, say, RRG... Maybe a Gunks 5.9 climber will be a 5.10 climber elsewhere. O.K., big deal... Lena, You and Paul don't necessarily see the Gunks as having "stiff" ratings simply because you both climb as hard as you do. Once you get past 5.10 (i.e. 5.11s and 5.12s) the climbs are quite comparable to 5.11s and 5.12s found at many other climbing areas. The reputation for "stiff" or sandbagged ratings in the Gunks comes from the ratings of the older (and easier) climbs. There are 5.4s and 5.5s in the Gunks that could easily be 5.7 or 5.8 in other areas. It is also possible that you didn't notice this, again because you climb at a much higher grade. However, this is definitely something that a 5.6 leader will notice. Curt Really? It's weird how I lead 5.7 - 5.9 at the Gunks and they feel like 5.7s, 5.8s and 5.9s to me. yup, weird. But what other areas do you climb at? If you primarily climb at the Gunks, then the Gunks is your yardstick. For the record, I find North Conway, NH to be stiffer than the Gunks. But then again, its much different climbing. Josh
*I'm not a good crack climber, so obviously YMMV.
|
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Oct 29, 2009, 5:53 PM
Post #39 of 96
(2187 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
lol 
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 29, 2009, 5:55 PM
Post #40 of 96
(2184 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
johnwesely wrote: jaablink wrote: When I got here I thought the grades were stiff compared to the Gunks too. After a month or so I can pull the same grades as the I was in the Gunks no problem. You just have to take the time to adapt. Depending on the rock and the style you will adapt faster or slower… except for the Muir in RRG where 9 Gunks climber should be on sighting 12 with ease. 5.9s at the gunks look like this? 
No. More like this:
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 29, 2009, 5:59 PM
Post #41 of 96
(2187 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
camhead wrote: tks wrote: The commitment in trying a 5.10 on gear in a new place is totally different from trying a 5.10 bolted route at a new place. I don't know about your experience, but it certainly jumps out at me. Tom This is definitely true. I was discussing this with a friend the other day, about how difficult it is to be a truly consistent onsight climber of a certain grade at ALL areas of North America. I can think of plenty of 5.10s that I would definitely not onsight right now. I would be willing to bet that not even most pro climbers consistently onsight 11+ gear through all areas (everything from Vedauwoo offwidth to Tuolomne slab to Gunks roofs to Creek finger cracks to North Carolina quartzite.
This might be an interesting side topic. How many different areas have you onsighted at a certain grade? I'll go first, since this is primarily an ego driven thread anyways . I have onsigted 5.10 at the Gunks, North Conway, Yosemite, Red Rocks, Squamish and a bunch of smaller crags. I have also been shut down big time by certain 5.10s, as well, though! Out of all the 5.10s I have onsighted, NONE have been cracks larger than fingers, with NO attempts on 5.10 offwidth. Interpret that how you may.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 29, 2009, 6:00 PM
Post #42 of 96
(2184 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
What route is that? Doesn't look familiar.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Oct 29, 2009, 6:05 PM
Post #43 of 96
(2181 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: camhead wrote: tks wrote: The commitment in trying a 5.10 on gear in a new place is totally different from trying a 5.10 bolted route at a new place. I don't know about your experience, but it certainly jumps out at me. Tom This is definitely true. I was discussing this with a friend the other day, about how difficult it is to be a truly consistent onsight climber of a certain grade at ALL areas of North America. I can think of plenty of 5.10s that I would definitely not onsight right now. I would be willing to bet that not even most pro climbers consistently onsight 11+ gear through all areas (everything from Vedauwoo offwidth to Tuolomne slab to Gunks roofs to Creek finger cracks to North Carolina quartzite. This might be an interesting side topic. How many different areas have you onsighted at a certain grade? I'll go first, since this is primarily an ego driven thread anyways . I have onsigted 5.10 at the Gunks, North Conway, Yosemite, Red Rocks, Squamish and a bunch of smaller crags. I have also been shut down big time by certain 5.10s, as well, though! Out of all the 5.10s I have onsighted, NONE have been cracks larger than fingers, with NO attempts on 5.10 offwidth. Interpret that how you may. Josh
ok, since everyone knows I'm an egotistical spraylord, as well!
I actually make it a point to try to onsight at least solid 11 trad at every area I go to: Squamish, Red Rocks, Jtree, Indian Creek, New River Gorge, Gunks, Paradise Forks, Enchanted Rock, TX, Tennessee Wall, City of Rocks, Smith Rock, Red River Gorge.
However, like you, BEC, this is done primarily by selectively picking climbs that are my style. There are plenty of 10a's at all these areas that I stay the hell away from.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 29, 2009, 6:06 PM
Post #44 of 96
(2180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: What route is that? Doesn't look familiar.
Jekyll and Hyde at Skytop. Full value 5.9 for sure.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
mr.tastycakes
Oct 29, 2009, 6:11 PM
Post #45 of 96
(2169 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 10, 2008
Posts: 310
|
*grabs popcorn*
the gunks v. the red...bold oldschool trad crag or weke 5.5 noobland...the southeast's premier sport crag or softly-graded outdoor hangdog gym. which arguments will prevail? you be the judge.
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Oct 29, 2009, 6:23 PM
Post #46 of 96
(2155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
definitely agree with camhead. in my mind, a person who can onsight in the low to mid 12 range, 90% of the time, at any area, any style, is probably a world class climber. i REGULARLY see prolific climbers (ie pictures plastered all over magazines) get shut down on routes in the upper 5.11 to lower 5.12 range. this used to surprise me, but climbing hard is, well, hard.
like camhead, one of my goals at every area i go to is to onsite at least 1 5.11 pitch. some places this is easy, some places hard for me. some styles are easy for me, some styles are hard for me. for me, it has taken a LOT of time and a LOT of effort to be able to do this. it has been worth it though, to me at least.
|
|
|
|
|
jajen
Oct 29, 2009, 6:25 PM
Post #47 of 96
(2149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2006
Posts: 81
|
curt wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: What route is that? Doesn't look familiar. Jekyll and Hyde at Skytop. Full value 5.9 for sure. Curt
Definitely "full value" and fun as hell!!!
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 29, 2009, 6:29 PM
Post #48 of 96
(2145 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
lemon_boy wrote: definitely agree with camhead. in my mind, a person who can onsight in the low to mid 12 range, 90% of the time, at any area, any style, is probably a world class climber. i REGULARLY see prolific climbers (ie pictures plastered all over magazines) get shut down on routes in the upper 5.11 to lower 5.12 range. this used to surprise me, but climbing hard is, well, hard. like camhead, one of my goals at every area i go to is to onsite at least 1 5.11 pitch. some places this is easy, some places hard for me. some styles are easy for me, some styles are hard for me. for me, it has taken a LOT of time and a LOT of effort to be able to do this. it has been worth it though, to me at least.
It's a worthy goal to onsite a 5.11 pitch everywhere you go, but I think it's even harder to be a true "solid 5.10" climber. By that I mean being able to do any 5.10 at any climbing area. I probably used to be a solid 5.10 climber, but that was years ago--and today I have to pick my battles much more carefully.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Oct 29, 2009, 6:31 PM
Post #49 of 96
(2142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
curt wrote: lena_chita wrote: granite_grrl wrote: And lets face, the Gunks really isn't that bad. It's a totally different style than what most tradies are used to so a lot of people cry about it. People who climb at the Gunks like this 'cause it lets them puff out their chests and call themselves hardmen/women. Hah, you beat me to it! Yes, Gunks grades are stiff- but not THAT stiff. And I don't understand why people who climb at Gunks ( or JTree, or other stiffly-graded places) are so keen at mentioning it right and left. I'd say that it is tricky gear placements that make Gunks hard, not the moves per se. I have not noticed the moves being significantly harder than the moves of the same grade elsewhere, they are just different kind of moves... A 5.12 climber from any climbing area, no matter how soft, will be able to climb 5.9 at the Gunks. The reverse, however, is not true-- e.i. Gunks 5.9 climber is not going to crush 5.12 at, say, RRG... Maybe a Gunks 5.9 climber will be a 5.10 climber elsewhere. O.K., big deal... Lena, You and Paul don't necessarily see the Gunks as having "stiff" ratings simply because you both climb as hard as you do. Once you get past 5.10 (i.e. 5.11s and 5.12s) the climbs are quite comparable to 5.11s and 5.12s found at many other climbing areas. The reputation for "stiff" or sandbagged ratings in the Gunks comes from the ratings of the older (and easier) climbs. There are 5.4s and 5.5s in the Gunks that could easily be 5.7 or 5.8 in other areas. It is also possible that you didn't notice this, again because you climb at a much higher grade. However, this is definitely something that a 5.6 leader will notice. Curt
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
I feel that the Gunks climbing, being essentially face climbing with roofs, is something that I have experience with, and technique for, from sport climbing. maybe that's why the climbing does not feel all that difficult for the grade. Being a relatively new trad climber, obviously the gear is the hardest part for me. And Gunks seems to be the place where gear placements really get sparse with the grade increase -- not many G-rated 5.11s/5.12s at the Gunks. Whereas some other places the grade increase means harder moves, but still good gear.
I have not climbed a lot at the Gunks, and have not done anything in the under-5.7 range, so I cannot speak for those. It makes sense though from historical perspective, because Gunks is one of the older climbing areas. Even is other places, like the New or the Red, the climbs that have been established a long time ago are often graded stiffer than newer climbs.
|
|
|
|
|
dan4geng
Oct 29, 2009, 6:34 PM
Post #50 of 96
(2133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2006
Posts: 64
|
People always make claims that the Red is Soft. I imagine this claim is mostly made by 5.11 climbers who are supprised they can hang their way up 5.12s. Many 5.12s at the Red may not have any move harder then a 5.11 but its the pump factor that makes it a 5.12 when climbed from the ground to the chains.
Muir valley excluded... There are quite a few routes that are hard for the grade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
