|
deco
Apr 28, 2004, 1:28 AM
Post #26 of 29
(3152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 30, 2002
Posts: 75
|
In my case it was getting into the 13īs. Probably because before that i was into working routes, projecting, i just climbed as many as routes as possible. This was very important to develop rock experience...just having fun!now i still have fun, but it takes more work!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
bandidopeco
Apr 28, 2004, 1:49 AM
Post #27 of 29
(3152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 257
|
Just to clear up a matter, the a b c d sub-grades came out of Yosemite in the 60's. Back then 5.10 was considered the most difficult climb, so climbers were hesitant to rate something as a 5.11. (The who do you think you are? factor) So there started to be a wide variance in the valley between the hardest and the easiest 5.10s. So that was when Bridwell suggested that sub-grades should be used. At least that's what he told me. And the obvious answer is that the biggest leap is the current one.
|
|
|
|
|
moeman
Apr 28, 2004, 2:42 AM
Post #28 of 29
(3152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2002
Posts: 1417
|
The biggest difference in grades is between you CAN do it and you CAN'T do it. Other than that, grades are just bullhonkey.
|
|
|
|
|
a_scender
Apr 28, 2004, 2:54 AM
Post #29 of 29
(3152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 88
|
I would agree that for many people breaking into the 5.10 barrier is a big jump. But for many others 5.10 is just a starting point. That being said, it is impossible to gauge the grade jump from area to area. Like many people have already brought up, a 5.9 in one area could be a 5.10 or harder in another. Sometimes there is very little consistency even within a particular area. All that and I haven't even taken into account how different each persons experience is on any one route. I guess that my experience has been that there is no grade jump in numbers. Some climbs are just harder than others. For me. That's all. There has never been any relation to the supposed number grade.
|
|
|
|
|
|