|
gogo
Feb 16, 2005, 9:13 AM
Post #1 of 112
(9293 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2004
Posts: 198
|
Alright, so I've been thinking.
Just about every climbing area I've been to, both the locals and the magazines claim is sandbagged. Big Bend is sandbagged. Squamish is sandbagged. Yosemite is sandbagged. Skyland is sandbagged. Rifle is sandbagged (if you don't have the sequence and kneebar beta) Entire nations get listed as sandbagged, such as Japan (see the Japan issue of climbing), New Zealand, and Australia.
Occasionally, I hear that an area has "just right" grades, like Hueco. But I have really yet to hear that the grades are soft somewhere. Is there some kind of weird innate sense of pride that doesn't allow people to claim their area is soft, but sandbagged like, well, everywhere else?
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Feb 16, 2005, 9:18 AM
Post #2 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
The Obed is soft. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
atpeaceinbozeman
Feb 16, 2005, 9:21 AM
Post #3 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2002
Posts: 478
|
I hear Redrocks, NV grades are pretty soft.
Maybe I can tick some big numbers there this spring :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Feb 16, 2005, 9:23 AM
Post #4 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4772
|
Man, I can't wait (can't wait) until some pampered upper-New Yorker comes along to claim that the Gunks are famous for being sandbagged. Because, trust me, if it doesn't happen in this thread, it'll be the only one.
|
|
|
|
|
salathiel
Feb 16, 2005, 9:41 AM
Post #5 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 132
|
Seneca Rocks has the softest grades in the US. Everyone should feel comfortable leading anything there. Stone Mountain, NC as well.
I say this with my tounge imbedded in my cheek.
Seriously, the best way Ideal with sandbaggin' is by understanding the history of the area, and the route itself. If a particular route I have climbed feels stiff/soft for the grade, I will remember the first ascentionist, and grade following routes accordingly. I also use this method to note the general quality of routes, and to find some hidden gems.
Don't know if this helps.
Blur
|
|
|
|
|
sammmy
Feb 16, 2005, 9:42 AM
Post #6 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 1, 2004
Posts: 59
|
i think little rock city (TN) is soft...you had mentioned that skyland was sandbagged...skyland, crested butte? i would say the ratings there are pretty much right on. there are a few spots/problems around boone that are definitely sandbagged, but sandbagging is ok...break down the ego a little, let you know you are not (near) as strong as who put up the route/problem.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Feb 16, 2005, 9:43 AM
Post #7 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8572
|
In reply to: Alright, so I've been thinking. Just about every climbing area I've been to, both the locals and the magazines claim is sandbagged. Big Bend is sandbagged. Squamish is sandbagged. Yosemite is sandbagged. Skyland is sandbagged. Rifle is sandbagged (if you don't have the sequence and kneebar beta) Entire nations get listed as sandbagged, such as Japan (see the Japan issue of climbing), New Zealand, and Australia. Occasionally, I hear that an area has "just right" grades, like Hueco. But I have really yet to hear that the grades are soft somewhere. Is there some kind of weird innate sense of pride that doesn't allow people to claim their area is soft, but sandbagged like, well, everywhere else?
I've heard Rifle was soft if you had good technique. Basically, all the great places of the world are "sandbagged" on account of having a well established and old hierarchy of grades. These are the places that existed in a vaccuum without needing to know what a 5.10 3000 miles away was.
Everybody says Vedauwoo is sandbagged. Its not. Its just that the moves that bring any given climb down to its published grade are a) inobvious or b) not enjoyable. I'm told the Gunks are really just pumpy, but not sandbagged. JTree might actually be sandbagged.
|
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
Feb 16, 2005, 9:44 AM
Post #8 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
jacks canyon AZ...I've been told that is soft
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Feb 16, 2005, 9:50 AM
Post #9 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1513
|
Any area where the majority of the routes were developed in the last 20 years is soft. All us old farts believe that....
|
|
|
|
|
rockhound71
Feb 16, 2005, 9:58 AM
Post #10 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 225
|
In reply to: gogo Posted: 16 Feb 2005 09:13 Post subject: Sandbagging -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alright, so I've been thinking. Just about every climbing area I've been to, both the locals and the magazines claim is sandbagged. Big Bend is sandbagged. Squamish is sandbagged.
Squamish sandbagged? That's the first time I've heard that!
I think it all depends on the route and the ethics behind it, as was mentioned. Some routes with the same grade in an area are quite easy, and others are hard.
As 'they' say, it's all relative!
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Feb 16, 2005, 10:09 AM
Post #11 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1548
|
In reply to: I hear Redrocks, NV grades are pretty soft. Maybe I can tick some big numbers there this spring :lol:
Oddly enough I was gonna use just this place as an example of how varied the route grading can be, even with climbs close by in the same area. Some climbs have soft grades, others might have stout grades.
So for example, one afternoon we sport climbed in this little cove of mostly 5.11 sport routes (I'm checking out the data base for names). Anyways, going in order, the grades went something like this:
5.11b (Gift something or other?) A pretty soft grade.
5.11a Another softy
5.11b Didn't do
5.11b Cool route
5.11d Didn't do
5.11a A little tricky
5.11a A bit stout
Everyone there (about 10 people) agreed the last 5.11a was harder than the first 5.11b.
Ah ha, I found it! Holiday Wall in the Sandstone quarry. The first 11b is Gift Wrapped. Amazing I remembered the grades so well after 6 years.
Anyways, if you just wanna feel like a hero, go flash Gift Wrpaped and then look for other soft grades. But you'll have a lot more fun if you just climb as many of the routes as you can and forget about the grade. One nice thing about short sport routes, is you can do that.
|
|
|
|
|
hosh
Feb 16, 2005, 10:09 AM
Post #12 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2003
Posts: 1662
|
I often get the comment that the routes I set in our local gym are sandbagged. It's pretty embarasing when I rate something a 5.8 and it gets re-rated as a 5.9 with the frindge who say it should be a 10-. I'm not trying to be tough, I guess I just suck at rating things...
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Feb 16, 2005, 11:24 AM
Post #13 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: Yosemite is sandbagged.
This statement is illogical. The grading system we use is the YDS, AKA Yosemite Decimal System. Since the grading system was developed in Yosemite, the grades are what they are, and generally should be considered the benchmark for grading.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Feb 16, 2005, 11:28 AM
Post #14 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: I hear Redrocks, NV grades are pretty soft.
I hear that a lot too. In my limited experience there, a lot of sport climbs felt hard for the grade. Don't know if it was due to broken holds, or just not being use to the rock, but I didn't leave with an inflated ego by any means.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Feb 16, 2005, 11:40 AM
Post #15 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2448
|
In reply to: Seneca Rocks has the softest grades in the US. Everyone should feel comfortable leading anything there. Stone Mountain, NC as well. I say this with my tounge imbedded in my cheek.
It's funny, I take a certain degree of pride in being a weak Seneca climber. I figure I might suck, but I suck less when I travel.
|
|
|
|
|
yorb
Feb 16, 2005, 11:49 AM
Post #16 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: 102
|
In reply to: In reply to: Yosemite is sandbagged. This statement is illogical. The grading system we use is the YDS, AKA Yosemite Decimal System. Since the grading system was developed in Yosemite, the grades are what they are, and generally should be considered the benchmark for grading.
Wasn't the YDS actually developed at tacquitz (however you spell it) despite the name?
|
|
|
|
|
gogo
Feb 16, 2005, 11:55 AM
Post #17 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2004
Posts: 198
|
True, saying Yosemite is sandbagged is strange, but I hear it quite a bit.
Oh, and yes, Skyland in Crested Butte. I felt they were pretty good ratings too, but like I said, everything I've been to has been claimed to be sandbagged. Personally, I feel that the rating systems can be so subjective that I don't really care. V5 in one place in V7 in another. But both places will have people claiming their sandbagged.
The only place that I feel I've climbed at that was really stiff as compared to everywhere else was Big Bend, in Moab.
But I really find it strange when magazines refer to entire countries as sandbagged. It's kinda hard to believe that every route/problem in Japan is really stiff.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Feb 16, 2005, 11:55 AM
Post #18 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: Wasn't the YDS actually developed at tacquitz (however you spell it) despite the name?
Well, I've been wrong before... anyway, i'd still use Yosemite as the benchmark.
|
|
|
|
|
bandycoot
Feb 16, 2005, 11:58 AM
Post #19 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 2020
|
Yes Tahquitz is the birthplace of the YDS. Royal Robbins (and others)created the decimal system 5.0 - 5.9. The Open Book, at Tahquitz, is the definition of 5.9 and a great climb as well! Still, despite the fact the ratings were created at Tahquiz I still hear beginners talk about how sandbagged the routes out there are. Pretty ridiculous. :roll:
Josh
Edited for accuracy, I pulled out the Tahquitz guide.
|
|
|
|
|
duckwalk
Feb 16, 2005, 12:09 PM
Post #20 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2003
Posts: 86
|
I think that all of the older school places are right on and all newer places are soft. All in the perspective 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
adamwvt
Feb 16, 2005, 12:13 PM
Post #21 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2002
Posts: 146
|
I like to use the grades in the Adirondacks as my measuring stick.
|
|
|
|
|
rhu
Feb 16, 2005, 12:16 PM
Post #22 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 242
|
I've always heard that the Gunks were sandbagged. Horseshoe Canyon in AR is totally soft at one the walls. The rest, not so much.
|
|
|
|
|
bigo
Feb 16, 2005, 12:21 PM
Post #23 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 237
|
every climb i can't do is sandbagged - every climb you do is soft.
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Feb 16, 2005, 12:29 PM
Post #24 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4772
|
In reply to: Man, I can't wait ( can't wait) until some pampered upper-New Yorker comes along to claim that the Gunks are famous for being sandbagged. Because, trust me, if it doesn't happen in this thread, it'll be the only one.
In reply to: I've always heard that the Gunks were sandbagged.
Well, that didn't take long.
|
|
|
|
|
jammer
Feb 16, 2005, 12:44 PM
Post #25 of 112
(9292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2002
Posts: 3468
|
unless you have the same person rate every climb in the world, there will be questions pretaining to the grades. Who the hell cares?? They are all fun as hell to climb ... the rest is basically braggin' rights, unless you use the numbers to decide if you should do the route or not.
|
|
|
|
|
poppasmearf
Feb 16, 2005, 12:52 PM
Post #26 of 112
(5487 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 77
|
In reply to: every climb i can't do is sandbagged - every climb you do is soft.
Exxaactly :!:
|
|
|
|
|
naw
Feb 16, 2005, 12:58 PM
Post #27 of 112
(5487 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2004
Posts: 192
|
As far as sport climbing goes, I've always heard that the new river gorge is soft. The one trip I had to the obed in TN seemed even softer than the ratings at new river gorge though, so I guess it must be really soft. Considering I'm barely leading 5.10 though I pretty much get spanked everywhere. I've always heard that smith rocks and yosemite were the most sandbagged areas in the country.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Feb 16, 2005, 1:00 PM
Post #28 of 112
(5487 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: I think that all of the older school places are right on and all newer places are soft. All in the perspective 8^)
Modern featherbagging seems most advanced at certain sport areas, where the '5.6' grade might be given to a slab climb with buckets. Then people expect the trad grades to be likewise.
|
|
|
|
|
jacquesjones
Feb 16, 2005, 2:20 PM
Post #29 of 112
(5487 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2004
Posts: 5
|
yes, but more interesting.
Does sandbagging make the climbers worse?
Some sandbagging makes the climber feel not as good and that he can't do hard routes.
Also some hard routes are easy.
-jacques
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Feb 16, 2005, 2:37 PM
Post #30 of 112
(5487 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: yes, but more interesting. Does sandbagging make the climbers worse?
But seriously...aside from just annoying me (on grouchy days) or cheering me up because I climb so hard (on outdoors days), climbing grade inflation leads people to overestimate their own skill level, which can be dangerous if they venture away from the trade routes.
|
|
|
|
|
off_center
Feb 16, 2005, 2:54 PM
Post #31 of 112
(5489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2004
Posts: 100
|
Pinnacles, near California's central coast, is fairly soft.
I think an area's rating softness or sand bagedness typically has to do with the area's age of development. Seems like older places typically have a stiffer rating than newer places. Anyone else notice that trend?
|
|
|
|
|
greenmachineman7
Feb 16, 2005, 3:17 PM
Post #32 of 112
(5489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 108
|
WAH WAH WAH. LIFE IS SANDBAGGED. DEAL WITH IT.
|
|
|
|
|
whatsupdoc
Feb 16, 2005, 3:24 PM
Post #33 of 112
(5489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2002
Posts: 312
|
In reply to: I think an area's rating softness or sand bagedness typically has to do with the area's age of development.
Sandbagedness, eh?
That's a new one.
|
|
|
|
|
naw
Feb 16, 2005, 3:27 PM
Post #34 of 112
(5489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2004
Posts: 192
|
In reply to: WAH WAH WAH. LIFE IS SANDBAGGED. DEAL WITH IT.
One of my favorite things on the internet is whenever someone attempts to insult everyone who's contributing to a thread by showing that he or she has nothing better to do than to contribute to it.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Feb 16, 2005, 9:17 PM
Post #36 of 112
(5489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
In reply to: Just about every climbing area I've been to, both the locals and the magazines claim is sandbagged. Big Bend is sandbagged. Squamish is sandbagged. Yosemite is sandbagged. Skyland is sandbagged. Rifle is sandbagged (if you don't have the sequence and kneebar beta) Entire nations get listed as sandbagged, such as Japan (see the Japan issue of climbing), New Zealand, and Australia.
conclusion: you can't compare crags as easily as comparing climbs of the same grade.... :? if that makes sense....
|
|
|
|
|
anykineclimb
Feb 16, 2005, 10:41 PM
Post #37 of 112
(5489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 3593
|
What is this "sandbag"?
|
|
|
|
|
arsenalcrater
Feb 16, 2005, 11:14 PM
Post #38 of 112
(5489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 147
|
I use Granite Mountain and Pardise Forks as my benchmark for grades. These places make me plenty strong so I can onsight 12's and 13's at Jacks.
|
|
|
|
|
jcshaggy
Feb 17, 2005, 2:31 AM
Post #39 of 112
(5489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 340
|
Most of the routes in SA that were sandbagged have now been given the correct grade although I had few surprises.
|
|
|
|
|
erclimb
Feb 17, 2005, 4:52 AM
Post #40 of 112
(5489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2002
Posts: 204
|
red rocks is very soft...and having so many bolts so close together is even softer...
but i'm an east coast climber, learned at seneca; so i'm accustomed to sandbagging (stone moutain, nc, is reasonable just way scary with the loooooong runouts)
i think j-tree is about perfect
|
|
|
|
|
whiteflash
Feb 17, 2005, 6:38 AM
Post #41 of 112
(5486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2003
Posts: 59
|
Sandrock Alabama is pretty darn soft by most standards. I think I'll have to agree with others that stated sport areas mostly developed recently tend to have softer grades than other older areas.
|
|
|
|
|
ambler
Feb 17, 2005, 6:49 AM
Post #42 of 112
(5486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 1690
|
In reply to: red rocks is very soft...and having so many bolts so close together is even softer... |
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Feb 17, 2005, 6:59 AM
Post #43 of 112
(5486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4574
|
In reply to: What is this "sandbag"?
It's what Indiana Jones replace the golden idol with in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
|
|
|
|
|
slobmonster
Feb 17, 2005, 8:20 AM
Post #44 of 112
(5486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 1586
|
In reply to: WAH WAH WAH. LIFE IS SANDBAGGED. DEAL WITH IT. |
|
|
|
|
angry
Feb 17, 2005, 8:37 AM
Post #45 of 112
(5486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 8400
|
Everything I've ever climbed within 20 miles of St. George UT is soft by at least a number grade. Guidebook 10b = actual 8+ in most cases.
Yosemite isn't sandbagged. If you can't climb at your grade in Yos, you probably have mistaken what "your grade" is.
Boulder Canyon is very very soft (minded, ethics, and grades).
Half of Vedauwoo is soft, the other half is sick, the average is perfect.
5.10 is soft in Indian Creek, above that it seems accurate (if you are the type that takes endurance into the ratings).
The south platte varies route to route.
The answer is.... Whatever, just deal.
|
|
|
|
|
tradklime
Feb 17, 2005, 8:58 AM
Post #46 of 112
(5486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2002
Posts: 1235
|
In reply to: Boulder Canyon is very very soft (minded, ethics, and grades).
Now now, I know for a fact that you have felt differently on a couple of routes on Castle Rock.
New routes... possibly. Overall, it depends.
Tough cake.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Feb 17, 2005, 9:01 AM
Post #47 of 112
(5486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 8400
|
OK, "The By Gulley" took all my sieging prowess to just aid up. I can't climb faces so the start of Athletes Feat and Country Club felt hard.
Aside from that I've onsighted more "hard" routes in B-canyon than anywhere else.
Shit, if I can onsight 10c in the rain while the crack is dripping water, it isn't 10c.
|
|
|
|
|
rhu
Feb 17, 2005, 10:47 AM
Post #48 of 112
(5486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 242
|
In reply to: In reply to: Man, I can't wait ( can't wait) until some pampered upper-New Yorker comes along to claim that the Gunks are famous for being sandbagged. Because, trust me, if it doesn't happen in this thread, it'll be the only one. In reply to: I've always heard that the Gunks were sandbagged. Well, that didn't take long.
You're welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
toofreakinsexy1
Jul 26, 2008, 12:17 AM
Post #49 of 112
(1766 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2007
Posts: 53
|
Great Falls. VA anyone? I met a 10d there a couple months ago that wiped me all over the place, and I climb pretty consistant 12a. Also I think it's funny that Franklin, WV and Seneca can be so close, I can climb 13a at Franklin and 5.3+ at Seneca, lol, and they're like an hour away from eachother, developed at different times does it I suppose
|
|
|
|
|
rtwilli4
Jul 26, 2008, 12:37 AM
Post #50 of 112
(1757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2008
Posts: 1867
|
I don't have a great amount of experience in the states but I'd say that most of the popular places in Thailand are pretty soft. I'm mainly talking about Railey/Tonsai and Koh Phi Phi. However, I have climbed with a lot of the guys who developed some of those walls and they had some interesting explanations for their grades (endurance, exposure, what kind of shape THEY were in, all kinds of random stuff). It made sense to me but I was usually in the middle of a joint or a bucket or both when we discussed these things.
how about Zoo View 5.7+) at Moore's Wall, NC. I had the opportunity to climb some trad. the other day (I have little trad. experience), and this one felt harder than a 7+. I guess it's hard for me to tell though... I'm outta shape and just learning to place/remove gear. Either way it fucking rocked!
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Jul 26, 2008, 1:06 AM
Post #51 of 112
(2134 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 8400
|
Resurection for the win?
|
|
|
|
|
Cogline
Jul 26, 2008, 7:25 AM
Post #52 of 112
(2111 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2008
Posts: 4
|
new zealand is definitely no sandbag. more a bit soft i found. especially wanaka. and castle hill got some feelgood problems too.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 26, 2008, 7:39 AM
Post #53 of 112
(2106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26358
|
angry wrote: Resurection for the win?
This is rc.com, after all.
" so lonely and looking for big manful guy not afraid to take all see come my webcam naked teenage naked webcam hot pics!!! hott picxz! want to chat alone? one on one chat on my web page big manful watch me take 8 inches manful big sexy penish lesbian at mywebpage.eu! today!"
yowza Yowza YOWZA!Manful penish? and to think I've just been watching vids with the regular kind...
|
|
|
|
|
forkliftdaddy
Jul 26, 2008, 7:48 AM
Post #54 of 112
(2105 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2003
Posts: 408
|
I've heard it said about LRC that the older problems, the ones that folks could sneak in and do, the ones not visible from the golf course, are about right, and that the newer, legally developed problems are probably softer. Seems to ring true for me.
Anybody think HP40 is a bit sandbagged?
|
|
|
|
|
Factor2
Jul 26, 2008, 8:20 AM
Post #55 of 112
(2097 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2008
Posts: 188
|
Red Rocks is very soft. Many of the 12 sport routes felt more like 10's and all the long 5.8's were more like 5.4's. When the guidebook said that a pitch was runout, it seemed to mean that you had to go a full 10 feet without solid pro. 
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 26, 2008, 8:24 AM
Post #56 of 112
(2095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18681
|
I'm sure some places are a little baggy, but I suspect the vast majority of those reps are just the usual story from people who aren't used to the areas in question. Camhead accused me (jokingly) of sandbaggery last weekend at the New. Those routes weren't harder than their grades, though. He just wasn't used to the New's "style" of facey trad climbing. IC's "easy" tens would probably hand me my ass on a platter.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Jul 26, 2008, 8:38 AM
Post #57 of 112
(2090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4773
|
The Monastery. Killin' me.
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
Jul 26, 2008, 8:50 AM
Post #58 of 112
(2086 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
forkliftdaddy wrote: Anybody think HP40 is a bit sandbagged?
Not really, at least at the lower grades I'm capable of climbing. I do get a kick out of some of the "controversial" ratings... Bum Boy being the classic example. I've heard everything from V2 to V5, depending on temperature, time of year, and phase of the moon. To me it felt V3 if you traverse out to the right and use the undercling (not really doing the problem IMHO), and easy v4 if you go straight up.
The warmup problems are often ridiculously soft. I've been on some "V1"s that felt more like 5.8, and plenty of the V2s feel soft as well. I can recall several problems (The Crown, Genesis, Moms to name a few) where I immediately thought "damn this is soft", and can't name one where I thought "this is sandbagged".
At the higher grades, things might be different, but you'll have to ask someone who isn't weak and fat for that one.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 26, 2008, 8:54 AM
Post #59 of 112
(2084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26358
|
j_ung wrote: IC's "easy" tens would probably hand me my ass on a platter.
Since when did my words come out of your keyboard?
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jul 26, 2008, 9:06 AM
Post #60 of 112
(2078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Posts: 980
|
Rather than compare different places (apples to oranges), it would be more interesting to see if there is a psychological profile that sandbaggers have versus those that rate correctly or even soft.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 26, 2008, 9:10 AM
Post #61 of 112
(2074 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26358
|
"everyone will think I'm a badass if I rate this problem Vx, when really it's Vx+1, or even Vx+2".
That was the reason I had a few years ago when I had these issues where I thought everyone thought I was a pussy.
Everyone DID think I was a pussy, and still do.
What can I say? I'm a pussy.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jul 26, 2008, 9:13 AM
Post #62 of 112
(2072 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Posts: 980
|
sungam wrote: "everyone will think I'm a badass if I rate this problem Vx, when really it's Vx+1, or even Vx+2". That was the reason I had a few years ago when I had these issues where I thought everyone thought I was a pussy. Everyone DID think I was a pussy, and still do. What can I say? I'm a pussy.
That's kind of what I was getting at. It seems like everyone at my gym that sandbags has serious ego or insecurity problems. Just an observation.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 26, 2008, 9:34 AM
Post #63 of 112
(2065 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26358
|
i don't know if that's always the reason, but it definitely is sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jul 26, 2008, 9:58 AM
Post #64 of 112
(2055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17671
|
j_ung wrote: I'm sure some places are a little baggy, but I suspect the vast majority of those reps are just the usual story from people who aren't used to the areas in question. Camhead accused me (jokingly) of sandbaggery last weekend at the New. Those routes weren't harder than their grades, though. He just wasn't used to the New's "style" of facey trad climbing. IC's "easy" tens would probably hand me my ass on a platter.
This is a lesson I seem to relearn just about every year. I'll spend months playing on gear protected face routes and then go on a crack binge and feel like I got weaker over night. Sandbaggers the lot of em!! It makes me feel better to think so anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
Jul 26, 2008, 10:24 AM
Post #65 of 112
(2045 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
mturner wrote: That's kind of what I was getting at. It seems like everyone at my gym that sandbags has serious ego or insecurity problems. Just an observation.
I sandbag most problems I set - and I can set problems significantly harder than I am able to climb. I do this for two reasons - one, gym climbers notoriously suck when they get outside. By sandbagging, a 5.9 gym climber actually has half a chance of flailing his way up a 5.9 outdoor climb. Most gym grades are soft, so I take it in the other direction to over-compensate. The second reason is, our gym is short. 25 feet of 5.11a isn't really good training for an outdoor 5.11, but if that 11a is really more like 11c, the climber might have a shot at having the strength to survive longer outdoor climbs. Not the most optimal solution but oh well.
My point is - I try to keep our gym consistently sandbagged, so no one person's ego is stroked, until they go to another gym and absolutely crush their problems.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Jul 26, 2008, 11:00 AM
Post #66 of 112
(2032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8572
|
I'm just insecure in my setting to the point that I consistently sandbag just to prevent the dreaded "that's like a V3 dude, not a V6". I hate that.
|
|
|
|
|
skibum14
Jul 26, 2008, 9:49 PM
Post #67 of 112
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2008
Posts: 63
|
Index, WA is the only area I know of that I would say is pretty sandbagged. I haven't done too much climbing there (just getting into the trad game), but I've heard stories from friends. As an aside, it's hard to say an area is sandbagged if you're already expecting it to be sandbagged.
I've never heard Squamish is sandbagged - and from the climbing I've done there, it's definitely not. The Gunks aren't sandbagged, they just start their ratings at 5.3 instead of giving everything up to 5.10 a grade of 5.6 or 5.7. It's rather nice, actually: elsewhere, I've been on 5.7s that are walks in the park and ones that take lots of concentration.
As most of the more experienced people have said, sandbagging is very hard to define unless you have lots of experience on the type of rock and the style of climbing. A 5.8 hand crack can seem impossibly hard if you only climb slab, regardless of whether you climb 5.11 slab or not.
|
|
|
|
|
time2clmb
Jul 27, 2008, 12:40 PM
Post #69 of 112
(1911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 473
|
Squamish sandbagged LMFAO....NOT!
|
|
|
|
|
fresh
Jul 28, 2008, 7:19 AM
Post #70 of 112
(1832 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2007
Posts: 1199
|
I feel like compared to cathedral/whitehorse in new hampshire, rumney is pretty soft. but that may be because I learned to climb in a gym. 5.5 slabs scare the bejesus out of me and are harder than any 5.9 sport route... to me. actually I climbed a 10d slab at rumney (hammond organ) that felt easier than some spots on standard route (5.5) at whitehorse.
(This post was edited by fresh on Jul 28, 2008, 7:20 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Jul 28, 2008, 7:28 AM
Post #71 of 112
(1825 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4574
|
Yay for revived threads! While I usually don't whine about any route being sandbagged, I feel I was th evictim of one recently. NOw, I feel that if it at least it feels within a few letter grades, then I usually chalk it up to different styles and my lack of ability in that particular one.
I was recently on a classic 5.10a at Cathedral in NH. Now before I give the name, let me just say that I usually onsight 5.10a. ANd not just at certain areas. I have onsight 5.10a's in Yosemite, Squamish, the Gunks and in the same area of NH, both at Cathedral and WHitehorse. This 10a ate me up and spit me out. The climb is Nutcracker, a Henry Barber route (the climb was actually 5.9+ in the old guidebook). I have been on 11a's that were much easier.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 29, 2008, 8:42 AM
Post #73 of 112
(1706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9697
|
j_ung wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: I was recently on a classic 5.10a at Cathedral in NH. Now before I give the name, let me just say that I usually onsight 5.10a. ANd not just at certain areas. I have onsight 5.10a's in Yosemite, Squamish, the Gunks and in the same area of NH, both at Cathedral and WHitehorse. This 10a ate me up and spit me out. The climb is Nutcracker, a Henry Barber route (the climb was actually 5.9+ in the old guidebook). I have been on 11a's that were much easier. One more reason why grades should never change. If it still had its old rating, you would have seen the "+" and expected the sandbag.
Just goes to show how one man's meat is another man's poison. I found Nutcracker to be one of the softer 10s I've done. Book of Solemnity, at the same grade, on the same wall, felt a solid number grade harder. And it's not just me! My seconds both climbed Nutcracker cleanly, but both fell repeatedly on The Book!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
wishiwasamonkey
Jul 29, 2008, 8:56 AM
Post #74 of 112
(1685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Posts: 51
|
What little I have climbed at the Muir Valley in Red River Gorge seemed exceptionally soft.
|
|
|
|
|
irregularpanda
Jul 29, 2008, 9:11 AM
Post #75 of 112
(1675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2007
Posts: 1364
|
mturner wrote: sungam wrote: "everyone will think I'm a badass if I rate this problem Vx, when really it's Vx+1, or even Vx+2". That was the reason I had a few years ago when I had these issues where I thought everyone thought I was a pussy. Everyone DID think I was a pussy, and still do. What can I say? I'm a pussy. That's kind of what I was getting at. It seems like everyone at my gym that sandbags has serious ego or insecurity problems. Just an observation.
Some of the time. There are those who sandbag their grades in the gym.
There are those who soften up their grades in the gym.
There are those who never climb outside so they don't actually have a yardstick to measure it by.
And then there's me. I am better with technique, and so I put something up, call it 5.10b, and everybody thinks it's an .11b. Whatever, It's just the gym. I know that squamish is NOT sandbagged. This much is true.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jul 29, 2008, 9:48 AM
Post #76 of 112
(1570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Posts: 980
|
irregularpanda wrote: mturner wrote: sungam wrote: "everyone will think I'm a badass if I rate this problem Vx, when really it's Vx+1, or even Vx+2". That was the reason I had a few years ago when I had these issues where I thought everyone thought I was a pussy. Everyone DID think I was a pussy, and still do. What can I say? I'm a pussy. That's kind of what I was getting at. It seems like everyone at my gym that sandbags has serious ego or insecurity problems. Just an observation. Some of the time. There are those who sandbag their grades in the gym. There are those who soften up their grades in the gym. There are those who never climb outside so they don't actually have a yardstick to measure it by. And then there's me. I am better with technique, and so I put something up, call it 5.10b, and everybody thinks it's an .11b. Whatever, It's just the gym. I know that squamish is NOT sandbagged. This much is true.
We have people like this too, those that say it's just technique...whatever it's still sandbagged if most people think it's harder.
|
|
|
|
|
irregularpanda
Jul 29, 2008, 10:14 AM
Post #77 of 112
(1555 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2007
Posts: 1364
|
mturner wrote: We have people like this too, those that say it's just technique...whatever it's still sandbagged if most people think it's harder.
No, it's not. Those people just lack the TECHNIQUE, to climb a technical 5.9 (or whatever grade you are inclined to complain about)
You are opening up an age old debate. If you are used to reachy problems that have no footwork, a technical problem will shut you down, even if it's 5.9. And vice versa.
Dyno problems shut me down.
There is also the argument of "what type of rock is it?" if you are used to granite, you could get sandbagged on sandstone, or basalt.
But there is also the fact that a technical 5.10a (or whatever fucking grade you want, it doesn't matter) is entirely different from a crack .10a, from a pumpy overhanging .10a, from a slabby .10a, or from a dynamic .10a.
Shall we continue with the list? I'm sure it goes on and on and on..........
Sandbag this and soft that, it doesn't really matter. Especially in the gym. What matters is real rock, the first ascensionist, and the local ethic.
One thing I know for sure: if there is a route that is rated 5.9, and it was put up in the 50s or in the early 60s, that's fucking NOT 5.9 by modern standards. Especially if Fred Beckey established it.
Edited for my emphasis
(This post was edited by irregularpanda on Jul 29, 2008, 10:16 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jul 29, 2008, 10:31 AM
Post #78 of 112
(1548 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Posts: 980
|
irregularpanda wrote: mturner wrote: We have people like this too, those that say it's just technique...whatever it's still sandbagged if most people think it's harder. No, it's not. Those people just lack the TECHNIQUE, to climb a technical 5.9 (or whatever grade you are inclined to complain about) You are opening up an age old debate. If you are used to reachy problems that have no footwork, a technical problem will shut you down, even if it's 5.9. And vice versa. Dyno problems shut me down. There is also the argument of "what type of rock is it?" if you are used to granite, you could get sandbagged on sandstone, or basalt. But there is also the fact that a technical 5.10a (or whatever fucking grade you want, it doesn't matter) is entirely different from a crack .10a, from a pumpy overhanging .10a, from a slabby .10a, or from a dynamic .10a. Shall we continue with the list? I'm sure it goes on and on and on.......... Sandbag this and soft that, it doesn't really matter. Especially in the gym. What matters is real rock, the first ascensionist, and the local ethic. One thing I know for sure: if there is a route that is rated 5.9, and it was put up in the 50s or in the early 60s, that's fucking NOT 5.9 by modern standards. Especially if Fred Beckey established it. Edited for my emphasis
Ok I admit I may have jumped the gun on this one. You're right in that they may lack the technique to climb a certain grade. What irks me is when I am climbing something well below my onsight level and find it difficult, even using the correct technique, and Joe-hardman says it's just technical. That to me is a load of poo.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jul 29, 2008, 10:43 PM
Post #79 of 112
(1496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
mturner wrote: irregularpanda wrote: mturner wrote: We have people like this too, those that say it's just technique...whatever it's still sandbagged if most people think it's harder. No, it's not. Those people just lack the TECHNIQUE, to climb a technical 5.9 (or whatever grade you are inclined to complain about) You are opening up an age old debate. If you are used to reachy problems that have no footwork, a technical problem will shut you down, even if it's 5.9. And vice versa. Dyno problems shut me down. There is also the argument of "what type of rock is it?" if you are used to granite, you could get sandbagged on sandstone, or basalt. But there is also the fact that a technical 5.10a (or whatever fucking grade you want, it doesn't matter) is entirely different from a crack .10a, from a pumpy overhanging .10a, from a slabby .10a, or from a dynamic .10a. Shall we continue with the list? I'm sure it goes on and on and on.......... Sandbag this and soft that, it doesn't really matter. Especially in the gym. What matters is real rock, the first ascensionist, and the local ethic. One thing I know for sure: if there is a route that is rated 5.9, and it was put up in the 50s or in the early 60s, that's fucking NOT 5.9 by modern standards. Especially if Fred Beckey established it. Edited for my emphasis Ok I admit I may have jumped the gun on this one. You're right in that they may lack the technique to climb a certain grade. What irks me is when I am climbing something well below my onsight level and find it difficult, even using the correct technique, and Joe-hardman says it's just technical. That to me is a load of poo.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 30, 2008, 1:43 AM
Post #80 of 112
(1479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26358
|
confusing, but yes.
Also, if the route is below your grade, you feel like you should do it easier, and even if you want to you don't always try your hardest- technically or physically.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jul 30, 2008, 9:37 AM
Post #81 of 112
(1457 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Posts: 980
|
stymingersfink wrote: mturner wrote: irregularpanda wrote: mturner wrote: We have people like this too, those that say it's just technique...whatever it's still sandbagged if most people think it's harder. No, it's not. Those people just lack the TECHNIQUE, to climb a technical 5.9 (or whatever grade you are inclined to complain about) You are opening up an age old debate. If you are used to reachy problems that have no footwork, a technical problem will shut you down, even if it's 5.9. And vice versa. Dyno problems shut me down. There is also the argument of "what type of rock is it?" if you are used to granite, you could get sandbagged on sandstone, or basalt. But there is also the fact that a technical 5.10a (or whatever fucking grade you want, it doesn't matter) is entirely different from a crack .10a, from a pumpy overhanging .10a, from a slabby .10a, or from a dynamic .10a. Shall we continue with the list? I'm sure it goes on and on and on.......... Sandbag this and soft that, it doesn't really matter. Especially in the gym. What matters is real rock, the first ascensionist, and the local ethic. One thing I know for sure: if there is a route that is rated 5.9, and it was put up in the 50s or in the early 60s, that's fucking NOT 5.9 by modern standards. Especially if Fred Beckey established it. Edited for my emphasis Ok I admit I may have jumped the gun on this one. You're right in that they may lack the technique to climb a certain grade. What irks me is when I am climbing something well below my onsight level and find it difficult, even using the correct technique, and Joe-hardman says it's just technical. That to me is a load of poo. The "correct" technique and the technique that works are at times two different things. I don't care if you can O.S. 5.11d, using the wrong "correct" technique on a 5.9+ will probably shut you down every time.
Huh what?!? I don't know what you meant by "correct" technique, but I mean the technique that is necessary coupled with the right amount of strength and other factors to send a climb. I think you're missing my point. There is always different factors with the ability to do a certain move, strength being one, technique being another. To simply say one is lacking the technique when they are using the exact same technique is an incorrect assessment.
Also, to try to get this back on track. I think the problem with sandbagging is that people sandbag using the technique excuse. For instance, a V10 climber sets a problem and calls it V3. All the V3 climbers fall on it and the V10 climber says they lack V3 technique. Assuming this isn't out of the ordinary (i.e. climber's used to climbing overhangs now trying slab), the V10 climber is probably out of touch with V3 technique and shouldn't use this excuse to sandbag.
(This post was edited by mturner on Jul 30, 2008, 9:44 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
bb_guns
Jul 30, 2008, 11:44 AM
Post #82 of 112
(1437 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2002
Posts: 15
|
Soft ratings:
Squamish
Red Rocks, NV
Sport climbs in Boulder Canyon, CO
Shelf Road, CO
Sandbagged:
Vedauwoo, WY
Index, WA
In general, I find that alpine climbs are rated a bit soft. Conversely, any climb with a "+" on it (especially if it has been around for over 20 years) tend to be sandbagged.
|
|
|
|
|
irregularpanda
Jul 30, 2008, 12:12 PM
Post #83 of 112
(1417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2007
Posts: 1364
|
mturner wrote: Also, to try to get this back on track. I think the problem with sandbagging is that people sandbag using the technique excuse. For instance, a V10 climber sets a problem and calls it V3. All the V3 climbers fall on it and the V10 climber says they lack V3 technique. Assuming this isn't out of the ordinary (i.e. climber's used to climbing overhangs now trying slab), the V10 climber is probably out of touch with V3 technique and shouldn't use this excuse to sandbag.
You get sandbagged in the gym recently? Maybe you lack the technique? (tongue in cheek) But seriously, there are V-whatever problems that lack any technique, and then there are v-whatever problems where the crux has nothing to do with power, but perhaps body positioning or balance or sequence. Hence, lacking V3 technique.
Or you just got sandbagged.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Jul 30, 2008, 12:12 PM
Post #84 of 112
(1417 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8572
|
mturner wrote: Also, to try to get this back on track. I think the problem with sandbagging is that people sandbag using the technique excuse. For instance, a V10 climber sets a problem and calls it V3. All the V3 climbers fall on it and the V10 climber says they lack V3 technique. Assuming this isn't out of the ordinary (i.e. climber's used to climbing overhangs now trying slab), the V10 climber is probably out of touch with V3 technique and shouldn't use this excuse to sandbag.
This also happens when a climber is simply unfamiliar with a technique. You're gonna feel pretty sandbagged on a V3 that requires a certain technique you've never been exposed to, even if the problem is clearly V3 once you know that technique. I've set plenty of problems at the gym that have very easy movement, but unless you've been climbing for a while, that movement will not be obvious. What will be obvious is a much harder sequence, one that I didn't set.
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
Jul 30, 2008, 12:30 PM
Post #85 of 112
(1407 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
petsfed wrote: This also happens when a climber is simply unfamiliar with a technique. You're gonna feel pretty sandbagged on a V3 that requires a certain technique you've never been exposed to, even if the problem is clearly V3 once you know that technique. I've set plenty of problems at the gym that have very easy movement, but unless you've been climbing for a while, that movement will not be obvious. What will be obvious is a much harder sequence, one that I didn't set.
I run into this all the time - I like to set tricky sequences - rose moves, sneaky toe hooks, flags and drop knees. You'd be surprised how many 5.12-pulling mutant kids get thrown off a 5.9 with a deep rose.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 30, 2008, 12:36 PM
Post #86 of 112
(1402 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26358
|
Terminology issues...
What you meanz by rose?
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
Jul 30, 2008, 12:44 PM
Post #87 of 112
(1398 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
A rose is a deep cross-under, to the point where your head goes behind the arm being crossed under. If taken to the full reach, you basically end up facing away from the wall.
I can't really find a good quality picture or video to illustrate the move, so I hope that description makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 30, 2008, 12:49 PM
Post #88 of 112
(1390 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26358
|
Dun 'em, know what you mean.
I know it as a "full cross through".
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jul 30, 2008, 2:21 PM
Post #89 of 112
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
sungam wrote: Dun 'em, know what you mean. I know it as a "full cross through".
Someone feel free to correct me if I'm rong.
More than a feel will cost you though.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 30, 2008, 2:27 PM
Post #90 of 112
(1359 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26358
|
How much the costs?
I has a... friend... who is interested...
|
|
|
|
|
applewood
Jul 30, 2008, 3:06 PM
Post #91 of 112
(1353 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2007
Posts: 14
|
....the Gunks being one of the original areas should be setting the standard - they ain't sandbagged, we just get softer all the time (and bolted routes just make it more so). I climbed at the Gunks last fall and had a great time on "easy" grades (High Exposure is great irregardless of the grade!). I returned home to WA state and realized I'd been getting soft in my local grading... time to add more sand to the old bags....and enjoy the climbing for itself not the numbers.
IMHO older routes at Joshua Tree are fairly rated, Yosemite too (although not enough below 5.6...) City of Rocks, Red Rocks, Skaha are all pretty soft.... but like alot of folks have mentioned new types of rock sometimes require a learning curve. Your local crag should feel easier to you, and hence sandbagged to others.... the hidden hold of course makes it easier, but there shouldn't be a sign (or chalk tag) pointing it out. It's supposed to be an adventure sport right? Probably best to start a few grades below your limit at new areas, but that's just common sense!
(This post was edited by applewood on Jul 30, 2008, 3:24 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jul 30, 2008, 6:38 PM
Post #92 of 112
(1311 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
sungam wrote: How much the costs? I has a... friend... who is interested...
|
|
|
|
|
mikej
Jul 30, 2008, 11:29 PM
Post #93 of 112
(1288 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 7, 2006
Posts: 210
|
"Sandbag this and soft that, it doesn't really matter. Especially in the gym. What matters is real rock, the first ascensionist, and the local ethic."
gotta agree with panda here. but if you want a place thats not bagged, you should check out j tree.  HA HA, sorry, jk. But using an ultra classic as an example, stem gem at j tree is rated by the newest guide book as a v4, most locals say its a v3. i've known v10 climbers that cant do it and i've heard of arthritic old men that can do it backwards. look at a climb, if it looks good to you, then do it. screw the grading, discern if its hard or easy on your own and why. have fun. Numbers are at best a very rough guide for reasons already discussed. hard is hard no matter what number looms over it.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jul 31, 2008, 4:54 AM
Post #94 of 112
(1266 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2005
Posts: 980
|
irregularpanda wrote: You get sandbagged in the gym recently? Maybe you lack the technique? (tongue in cheek) But seriously, there are V-whatever problems that lack any technique, and then there are v-whatever problems where the crux has nothing to do with power, but perhaps body positioning or balance or sequence. Hence, lacking V3 technique. Or you just got sandbagged.
petsfed wrote: This also happens when a climber is simply unfamiliar with a technique. You're gonna feel pretty sandbagged on a V3 that requires a certain technique you've never been exposed to, even if the problem is clearly V3 once you know that technique. I've set plenty of problems at the gym that have very easy movement, but unless you've been climbing for a while, that movement will not be obvious. What will be obvious is a much harder sequence, one that I didn't set.
Both of you are missing my point. First off, this isn't meant to be a personal example, but just something I've noticed as a trend and the example I gave was completely hypothetical. I also said that the problem in question (which is hypothetical!!) is not out of the ordinary for any of the hypothetical climbers in question, so that would eliminate any possibility of it being technique oriented. In fact, many times the technique and sequence being used by the climbers failing is the same technique being used by the setter who sends. Again, this would assume it has more to do with the setter's strength (V10 climber) versus their technique (using technique a V3 climber is also using).
Maybe this hypothetical example would be better if we said a V10 climber setting a V3 problem that many V6 climbers can not do. Exaggeration yes, but it accentuates my original point that a V10 climber may be in fact out of touch with what constitutes a V3 climb or the technique versus strength a V3 climb requires. Who's in a better position to say what V3 technique is? One at or near that level? Or one far beyond that level? It'd seem most logical that one who possesses greater knowledge/experience/strength (i.e. the V10 climber) would know best, but in actuality the technique/strength bench marks needed to climber the lower grades may tend to blur. I'm not suggesting this as a rule so don't come back with, "I know a V10 climber who sets on grade" but I'm just saying some people in fact do incorrectly use technique as a way to justify wrongfully sandbagging a problem
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 31, 2008, 5:18 AM
Post #95 of 112
(1259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26358
|
stymingersfink wrote: sungam wrote: How much the costs? I has a... friend... who is interested... chances are gud she cantz afford it.
I'll tell her to start saving.
|
|
|
|
|
jrathfon
Jul 31, 2008, 6:54 AM
Post #96 of 112
(1230 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2006
Posts: 494
|
Applewood beat me to it a bit:
We should just drop the term sand-bagged. The Gunks, Seneca, Yosemite (never been), older routes at J-tree, NC granite, should be the standard.
Everything else is soft, and yes, you can see the trend of development in the last 20 years lending towards softer areas.
To contribute to the rest of the thread:
Soft: RUMNEY!!!, OBED, the Red RG, Red Rocks in general (but don't wander near rock warrior), HP40!! (try doing a V4 in pawtuckaway, I boulder V6 in HP and rocktown, and barely reach V4 in New England, north of Lincoln Woods)
On par: Gunks, Seneca, Dacks, North Conway, Cannon, J-Tree, Connecticut Trad, Western Mass
Touch easy: the New, Squamish
Think about it this way, and I may be wrong because I don't have super Gunks knowledge, but I don't think there is a 14a there (maybe one or two, but I am pretty sure none). However the 13's are purportedly Rumney 14's. It's not cause there haven't been hard climbers at the Gunks, it's because the grades are correct (read: NOT Sand-Bagged).
|
|
|
|
|
jrathfon
Jul 31, 2008, 6:58 AM
Post #97 of 112
(1228 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2006
Posts: 494
|
And, I'm not a gunkie, I just have a respect for them sticking to their guns and keeping what real grades should be. And yeah, if you have the chance peak at old guidebooks for the old rating. An old 9+ will definitely be a stiff 10a. And be wary of 9+ still left in the book, especially in the Northeast. Keep on Struttin' anyone?
I'd rather say I climb a sold 9+ on trad. :)
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Jul 31, 2008, 7:50 AM
Post #98 of 112
(1208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8572
|
I see what you're saying. More often than not though, in the example you bring, the V3 climber simply doesn't know the technique yet, but even the V4 or V5 climber will agree that the movement isn't that hard.
One of our better setters is a V12 climber. His V2s are dead on in terms of grade, although sometimes you have to think about how to climb the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Jul 31, 2008, 8:35 AM
Post #99 of 112
(1195 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1714
|
Someone once tried to tell me that Open Book at Tahquitz was a sandbagged 5.9...I didn't think that was really possible since it was the first 5.9 and therefore defined the grade.
|
|
|
|
|
AlexCV
Jul 31, 2008, 9:49 AM
Post #100 of 112
(1172 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 25, 2008
Posts: 283
|
csproul wrote: Someone once tried to tell me that Open Book at Tahquitz was a sandbagged 5.9...I didn't think that was really possible since it was the first 5.9 and therefore defined the grade.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Jul 31, 2008, 11:23 AM
Post #101 of 112
(1189 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
bb_guns wrote: Soft ratings: Squamish Red Rocks, NV Sport climbs in Boulder Canyon, CO Shelf Road, CO Sandbagged: Vedauwoo, WY Index, WA In general, I find that alpine climbs are rated a bit soft. Conversely, any climb with a "+" on it (especially if it has been around for over 20 years) tend to be sandbagged.
Index is an interesting case in that it combines many of the elements discussed in this thread. The cruxes often require highly developed balance and foot work and leg intensive stems, mantels and high steps on dicey fine grained smears. If you hit it on a cool dry day in good shoes the ratings below 11+ feel pretty in line with jtree, the stiffer stuff at squamish (most of the 9's are about the same difficulty as Penny Lane for example) etc. There are even a few index routes that might be considered soft (leave my face alone (11a) and climax control (11c) both have one hard move)
However, in eight years of climbing there I have never seen anyone redpoint anything harder than 11d. I know its been done, i've talked to people who have done it that day, i lived with a guy who climbed 13b there, I've belayed attempts on 12's by strong climbers and i've struggled to tr a few harder lines myself but "hard" red points at index are not common.
This is partly because of technique and conditions but when it comes down to it the guide book author and the community that put up many of the old school routes wired the hell out of them and then rated the hard stuff as stiff as they could get away with. Not sure if it was ego, familiarity with the stone or isolation or all of the above but thats the tradition.
There is a blurb on index in the new Alpinist where Sonnie trotter says iron horse (given 11d in Sky Valley Rock) is more realistically 12c. in the same piece Justin Sjong (who grew up one town over) gives his recent FFA of town crier a "sandbaged" 12d (the topo he drew rated the crux 13a and that may have been a sand bag too...he's far from the first to try to free the route)...he also calls it the only crag in the country where he can't on site 12a.
Some of the people putting up new stuff are giving it more realistic ratings (i've heard there's even a doable 12 or two now). And some of the guidebooks bump the grades up a bit so who know how long the tradition will last.
But all of that is just numbers and index would still be the best crag in the country even if everything was rated a full number grade harder and it was the softest crag around. The gear is generally good, the bolts are reasonably close and as long as you accept that you are going to occasionally need to spend half an hour figuring out how a move might even be possible regardless of its grade you will never find more rewarding climbing in a more beautiful setting.
If you're chasing numbers you should stay away. If you're after the perfect day leaving you exhausted sipping beer by the river...
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Jul 31, 2008, 9:47 PM
Post #102 of 112
(1152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8572
|
Pardon me for throwing a gauntlet down here, but I'd guess that part of the reason hard routes aren't getting done that often is because the locals just aren't that strong and the climbing is not big enough, or the setting inspiring enough to draw in many visiting hard men. Everybody knows about City Park. But everybody also knows about the axle grease incident, leading more than a few visiting hard persons to avoid it for fear of having to deal with a nasty local scene.
Index sounds like a great many VERY high quality granite crags (one of which is in my back yard) but I've never heard about the crazy strong Index (or more generally Seattle) scene. That's the reason you don't hear about hard routes getting done at Index. Has nothing to do with sandbagging. Its because the locals are not gettin' it done.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Aug 1, 2008, 1:08 PM
Post #103 of 112
(1112 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
Gauntlet thrown, though I have the feeling the only way to settle it is with a tour, i'm far from a hardman, traveling or otherwise, myself but let me know if you or any other rc.com hard people are ever in the area and we'll go get on some stuff.
Here are a few more pics of the uninspiring climbing and setting from the last couple of months:
Racing the sun up the lower wall's rogers corner (9+) to get on ...
Margnial Karma (11b) before it gets too hot for us pale northerners.
Random 12a flare on the blues cliff, the crux is moving from the dicey funkiness to a lay back a bit above where dave is. we all flailed needless to say.
Ten-pitch-eous, a 3 pitch 11d up one of the shorter section of ~mile long 800 ft upper wall. Cuts through the see of overhanging white knobby granite waves above...
The final pitch, also pictured in my previous post.
The axel grease incident is one of the sadder moments in index history (read about it if you haven't heard the story) The locals are less um...asshole-ish... now, Sonnie Trotter and some other visiting hardmen have tried it on their way through (he's got a blog post on it) and local Mikey Schafer (sp?) red pointed the route a year or two ago and another strong (and small fingered) local has been working it a bit this year...there are a few folks around here who get it it done and some more of us who are at least willing to fall off stuff...
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Aug 1, 2008, 1:17 PM
Post #104 of 112
(1107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8572
|
Well, the crucial bit of the argument was "or".
I'm actually planning on hitting Index early and often if I get a job in Seattle. It looks rad. But just like Vedauwoo, or Sweetwater Rocks, or the South Platte or countless other granite areas, it doesn't have the same notoriety of Squamish or the Valley, so it doesn't draw the hard persons like it should. As such, its on the locals to to make a name for it. So its on you guys. Get crankin'. We're doing the same out here.
(This post was edited by petsfed on Aug 1, 2008, 1:20 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Aug 1, 2008, 1:29 PM
Post #105 of 112
(1102 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
I was just looking for an excuses to spray about my favorite crag while i wait for the weekend to start...
I'll add those areas to my road tripping list though, granite kicks ass. Do let me know if you do end up out this way. We'll go crank.
What kind of job are you looking for?
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Aug 2, 2008, 12:14 AM
Post #106 of 112
(1089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8572
|
Aeronautical engineering, although I'll see what a BS in astrophysics can get me.
Boeing looked promising though.
|
|
|
|
|
applewood
Apr 25, 2012, 8:40 PM
Post #107 of 112
(723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2007
Posts: 14
|
You're kidding right? Most newer bolted places seem soft to me, especially in the lower grades (I think people have forgotten how hard a 5.7 can be). Grading seems more accurate in the higher grades (5.10 and above). Skaha is soft, Mazama is soft... (last summer I did a few at Mazama with my daughter, consistently we both thought the 5.8's were 5.5's the 5.7 more like 5.4's, but the 10c kicked our butt!
Ever climber should make a pilgrimage to the Gunks to see how "easy" climbs are graded. High Exposure really is a 5.6 (even though everyone says it feels like an 8) - there is a big difference between 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 etc... (just as big as between 5.10, 5.11. 5.12 imho!)
A friend put it pretty succinctly when his girlfriend was complaining about a 5.4 she was on, "if it's rated 5.4 you must be missing a hold" And she was....
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Apr 26, 2012, 5:08 AM
Post #108 of 112
(664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4574
|
applewood wrote: You're kidding right? Most newer bolted places seem soft to me, especially in the lower grades (I think people have forgotten how hard a 5.7 can be). Grading seems more accurate in the higher grades (5.10 and above). Skaha is soft, Mazama is soft... (last summer I did a few at Mazama with my daughter, consistently we both thought the 5.8's were 5.5's the 5.7 more like 5.4's, but the 10c kicked our butt! Ever climber should make a pilgrimage to the Gunks to see how "easy" climbs are graded. High Exposure really is a 5.6 (even though everyone says it feels like an 8) - there is a big difference between 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 etc... (just as big as between 5.10, 5.11. 5.12 imho!) A friend put it pretty succinctly when his girlfriend was complaining about a 5.4 she was on, "if it's rated 5.4 you must be missing a hold" And she was....
I wonder if anyone has changed their opinion on sandbagging in the FOUR years since the last post 
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Apr 26, 2012, 5:17 AM
Post #109 of 112
(659 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 5323
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: applewood wrote: You're kidding right? Most newer bolted places seem soft to me, especially in the lower grades (I think people have forgotten how hard a 5.7 can be). Grading seems more accurate in the higher grades (5.10 and above). Skaha is soft, Mazama is soft... (last summer I did a few at Mazama with my daughter, consistently we both thought the 5.8's were 5.5's the 5.7 more like 5.4's, but the 10c kicked our butt! Ever climber should make a pilgrimage to the Gunks to see how "easy" climbs are graded. High Exposure really is a 5.6 (even though everyone says it feels like an 8) - there is a big difference between 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 etc... (just as big as between 5.10, 5.11. 5.12 imho!) A friend put it pretty succinctly when his girlfriend was complaining about a 5.4 she was on, "if it's rated 5.4 you must be missing a hold" And she was.... I wonder if anyone has changed their opinion on sandbagging in the FOUR years since the last post Josh
I know that post just changed my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Apr 26, 2012, 5:23 AM
Post #110 of 112
(655 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26358
|
johnwesely wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: applewood wrote: You're kidding right? Most newer bolted places seem soft to me, especially in the lower grades (I think people have forgotten how hard a 5.7 can be). Grading seems more accurate in the higher grades (5.10 and above). Skaha is soft, Mazama is soft... (last summer I did a few at Mazama with my daughter, consistently we both thought the 5.8's were 5.5's the 5.7 more like 5.4's, but the 10c kicked our butt! Ever climber should make a pilgrimage to the Gunks to see how "easy" climbs are graded. High Exposure really is a 5.6 (even though everyone says it feels like an 8) - there is a big difference between 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 etc... (just as big as between 5.10, 5.11. 5.12 imho!) A friend put it pretty succinctly when his girlfriend was complaining about a 5.4 she was on, "if it's rated 5.4 you must be missing a hold" And she was.... I wonder if anyone has changed their opinion on sandbagging in the FOUR years since the last post Josh I know that post just changed my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
applewood
Apr 26, 2012, 6:18 AM
Post #111 of 112
(631 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2007
Posts: 14
|
Haha, I responded to this thread last night and then after reading through the comments realized I had responded to it 4 yrs ago! Completely forgot!
But if anything in the past 4 years I've been trying to keep the grades stiff on routes I've been putting up (resisting the tide of softness that comes with age. And I'm still looking to put up the perfect 5.4....). And noticing how soft so many of the new routes around here are.
I think someone else said it best here, that how can Open Book, the original 5.9, at Tahquitz Rock be a sandbag (and inflated to a 10 now?) if it was/is the definition of a 9?
That being said, for me at least there is a big difference in a trad 5.7 or 9 (where you can die from falling off while fiddling with getting a poor placement in) and a bolted 5.7 or 9 sport climb.
|
|
|
|
|
RickMix
Jul 13, 2012, 5:49 AM
Post #112 of 112
(429 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2008
Posts: 12
|
Everyone here has got it wrong. Sandbagging has nothing to do whatsoever with grades at any area. Sandbagging is the old and much-neglected art of bringing someone new to the crag and goading them onto harder routes than they suspect. Not with malice, but rather a sense of sportsmanship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
