|
old_apple_juice
Nov 28, 2004, 6:48 PM
Post #26 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 54
|
Fred Rouhling is my hero.
To be such a dedicated family man with kids and a wife and all that they've been through and to somehow continue to push the envelope of climbing in the face of constant rumors and idiotic evalutions by other climbers and the press, wow.
If Fred can have a decent family life and climb, so can I. What an inspiration.
Rouhling rocks. No questions asked.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
strangeday
Nov 28, 2004, 9:20 PM
Post #27 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2003
Posts: 40
|
I now hope that I am never able to climb the leading edge grades of the day. It's crazy that people who have never tried or even seen the route, can make subjecctive commentary on it. If he claims it to be a 9a and you feel it is overrated, who is to stop you from getting your gear together and giving it a go.... Oh, thats right, most of us can't even comprehend something as hard as he has done, and it is waaaay easier to be an armchair quarterback, than to get out on the field. I think Fred is a amazing and dedicated climber, regardless of his past, truth or fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Nov 30, 2004, 12:10 AM
Post #28 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: but the new rating way takes fatigue into consideration and the grades are thus much more consistant.
So a route with sustained 5.9 moves can now be called a 5.10+ route?
I guess I just don't agree with the concept of increasing a rating based on fatigue or the sustained nature of the climb.
By the same logic, a rating should be changed in accordance with the weather. Epinepherine, the classic 5.9 chimmney at Red Rocks, should be a 5.10+ in the first 36 hours after a rain fall. It can drop to an easy 5.8 if the temps are cool and the friction is perfect.
See my point?
(Yes, Fred's route looks wicked hard. No, I can't do it. That's not the point.)
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Nov 30, 2004, 5:30 PM
Post #29 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
In reply to: In reply to: but the new rating way takes fatigue into consideration and the grades are thus much more consistant. So a route with sustained 5.9 moves can now be called a 5.10+ route? I guess I just don't agree with the concept of increasing a rating based on fatigue or the sustained nature of the climb. By the same logic, a rating should be changed in accordance with the weather. Epinepherine, the classic 5.9 chimmney at Red Rocks, should be a 5.10+ in the first 36 hours after a rain fall. It can drop to an easy 5.8 if the temps are cool and the friction is perfect. See my point? (Yes, Fred's route looks wicked hard. No, I can't do it. That's not the point.)
i see your point. i dont say that the "new" or the "old" way are correct. i just know that "old" .10s feel more like "new" .11s. maybe the boys of lod had wicked endurance so fatigue wasnt a factor, who knows. the point is that that is how the routes are rated now, how the whole route "feels", not how hard is the hardest move. and i like this system better. not because someone seems to climb harder grades, but because it gives me a better idea if i can do a route or not.
another example would be verdon river gorge in france. some routes have two ratings. one is for dogging at every clip, the other is for climbing in a single push. guess wich one is higher.
|
|
|
|
|
wingnut
Dec 13, 2004, 1:42 AM
Post #30 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 754
|
That move is crazy!!! That route must be like the monkey bars fram hell! Wow.
________________
I refuse to accept your reality and substitute my own.
|
|
|
|
|
hasbeen
Dec 15, 2004, 5:47 PM
Post #31 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2003
Posts: 543
|
In reply to: Right, it shouldn't be harder to do 20 one arm pullups in a row if you can do one.
In reply to: So a route with sustained 5.9 moves can now be called a 5.10+ route? I guess I just don't agree with the concept of increasing a rating based on fatigue or the sustained nature of the climb.
Maybe I missed the sarcasm here but, really, are these serious questions and observations? If so, let me take a page out of John McEnroe's book,
"You've gotta be sh^^'n me! Holy crap! You can't be serious!"
Um, dudes, when you're watching the Olympics do you find yourselves discrediting marathoners because they don't run as fast as the 100-meter guys? Does the idea that high jumpers pass on certain jumps confound you? When someone gets passed towards the end of a race do you find yourself thinking, "that person must be really dumb, they slowed down at gave away the Gold?"
Without going into too much detail I will point out that our bodies have what we call aerobic and anaerobic pathways, both of which fatigue under duress, causing our bodies to perform less and less well over a given distance. I can provide more detail if you don't believe me but, somehow, I'll assume that this has happened to you and you'll be able to relate.
Therefore, by definition doing 20 one-arms is harder than doing one. Doing a bunch of 5.9 moves is harder than doing one. Climbing rating are, well, difficulty ratings which by definition means that as things become more difficult they get rated harder. Therefore, a route with 20 one-arms will be harder than a route requiring one.
Historically, this has always been the case. The gray area lies in that older routes were less steep, allowing one to recovery well between hard sections. While the norm in places like Josh and Yosemite, where no-hands rests were common between difficult sections, the desert has always been different and routes have been rated more on their sustained factor than their hardest move.
As climbers become more fit it's harder to rate given all criterea. Some climbers are better at endurance, some at power, etc, just like runners over given distances are more well suited to the distance. 100 meter runners are generally not good milers, and vice-versa.
In climbing, a rating is given for one to finish the pitch in its entirety without falling off. Therefore, saying the the rating for a two pitches, both 80' long where one is overhanging, sans rests, requiring 5.10, 5.11, and 5,12 moves with a V7 crux while the other is 5.6 with a 6' section rated V7 should be the same is, by definition, wrong.
ps - i realize karl's quote is in jest, but i wanted to use that point in my analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
bustloose
Dec 15, 2004, 7:43 PM
Post #32 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2003
Posts: 489
|
In reply to: In reply to: but the new rating way takes fatigue into consideration and the grades are thus much more consistant. So a route with sustained 5.9 moves can now be called a 5.10+ route? I guess I just don't agree with the concept of increasing a rating based on fatigue or the sustained nature of the climb. By the same logic, a rating should be changed in accordance with the weather. Epinepherine, the classic 5.9 chimmney at Red Rocks, should be a 5.10+ in the first 36 hours after a rain fall. It can drop to an easy 5.8 if the temps are cool and the friction is perfect. See my point? (Yes, Fred's route looks wicked hard. No, I can't do it. That's not the point.)
dude, you're not really looking at this properly are you. Let's just say that your redpoint limit is 5.9. now lets take a 20 m route. if most of the route is 5.6-5.8 moves with a move or 2 of 5.9, then you got yourself a 5.9. if every single move on a 20 m route is a 5.9 move, then sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there is no way in hell that a 5.9 climber is getting up it. now lets extrapolate, everyone knows that climbing grades get exponentially harder, as in the jump from 10a to 11a is much easier than making the jump from 13a to 14a. so let's take a route that is most 14a moves for 19 m, then a crux of oh, say v10. you seriously want to call that a 14a route? get back to us when you've had a small dose of reality, k?
|
|
|
|
|
junkie
Dec 16, 2004, 7:31 PM
Post #33 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2001
Posts: 100
|
In reply to: That's the part I don't get. How does a climb that involves a hardest move of 8c get rated as a 9a? If I climb a trad line that is lots of 5.8 moves, with a 5.9 stretch, do I get to rate it a 5.10? Nope... It's a 5.9 climb. Where's the math here?
Go to Kentucky. Go to the Motherlode. Get on BOHICA and tell me that just because the hardest move is probably only and 11c crux, that it's an 11c route. Please. I wanna hear how you get by calling it 11c.
Or try Transworld Depravity and tell me that it's 12b. Try to keep a straight face.
Then ask me again "Where the math is".
|
|
|
|
|
eddie_munster
Feb 1, 2005, 4:12 AM
Post #34 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2004
Posts: 78
|
In reply to: in regards to rouhling, i was writing a fair bit back then for this sport and you couldn't get anyone interested in anything the guy was doing. he was completely discredited. if you sent the mags something positive or vindicating they would not print it though they'd gobble up slander without so much as a cursory phone call (climbing mags didn't used to attempt to fact check anything and would not even do it if requested). it was really unbelievable. i will say that climbing did print (and send journalists to write it appears) the rouhling story recently, which i did track down and read. so maybe they are changing their stance. i haven't read a climbing mag since michael kennedy was editor so it could be better now. still, i'd recommend that you keep an open mind about what you read in the mags.
let's be specific here, though. The American mags weren't giving him any credit, but many of the French climbers fully respected the guy back in the mid 90's. At least the ones I spoke with -- that was right about the time of the akira debacle.
The only French climbers who were giving him much shit were the insecure ones who couldn't touch akira.
|
|
|
|
|
jcshaggy
Feb 1, 2005, 1:18 PM
Post #35 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 340
|
Why doesn't anybody who doubts the guy just read the Climbing magazine article properly, word for word?
|
|
|
|
|
irockclimbtoo
Feb 2, 2005, 2:52 AM
Post #36 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2004
Posts: 309
|
ab
|
|
|
|
|
rainontin
Mar 9, 2005, 1:34 AM
Post #37 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2005
Posts: 262
|
As has been mentioned but completely ignored, the French use a rating system for boulders and a rating system for routes. You might notice the lower case "f" before the grade. This indicates the Fontainbleu scale, which is used for boulders. The Font scale tops out at 8c+, which translates into 9a+ for routes, which translates into 5.15a YDS. Not that any of that matters as there are only two grades: "I can climb this," and "I can't climb this...yet."
|
|
|
|
|
gunksgoer
Mar 9, 2005, 2:13 AM
Post #38 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 1290
|
I think that alot of people have forgotten that even realization (yes, the 5.15 put up by the much respected chris sharma) does NOT have 5.15 moves. it doesnt even have any 14+ moves. the 5.15 rating comes from a slew of moves in the 13+ range, moving into a bunch of 14- and 14 moves stacked on top of each other, for quite a distance. sharma even said the problem was the pump factor from the start of the route, wich made the last crux move very hard to hit. he also had to skip many of the clips in order to save energy.
Freds new route seems similar to this, very technical moves requiring lots of endurance. this is a very hard combo, and doesnt translate to yds grades very well.
|
|
|
|
|
lvclimbingbum
Apr 29, 2005, 1:57 PM
Post #39 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2005
Posts: 132
|
Kudos to Fred. I know that there's been a lot of controversey about his climbs and stuff like that. He's one of the best unknown (I'd guess he's "unknown" you don't hear much of him) climbers. Peace out.
|
|
|
|
|
janjaf
Jun 7, 2005, 8:11 AM
Post #40 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2001
Posts: 76
|
Rouhling definitely sets a new standard for insane technical moves. But, i'm especially glad, that the photos of Mandallaz Drive show him climbing in a shirt. Not a tank, not naked from the waist up, not wearing a beanie. That's so cool - as opposed to "kewl, d00d".
|
|
|
|
|
steezy
Jun 14, 2005, 6:42 AM
Post #41 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2005
Posts: 92
|
Fred Rouhling is the man. That move reminds me of gumby. Just twist his arms around and around.
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Jun 15, 2005, 12:31 AM
Post #42 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
In reply to: So a route with sustained 5.9 moves can now be called a 5.10+ route? I guess I just don't agree with the concept of increasing a rating based on fatigue or the sustained nature of the climb. By the same logic, a rating should be changed in accordance with the weather. Epinepherine, the classic 5.9 chimmney at Red Rocks, should be a 5.10+ in the first 36 hours after a rain fall. It can drop to an easy 5.8 if the temps are cool and the friction is perfect.
(disclaimer: the following comments are about ROCK climbs, not alpine, ice or mixed routes where weather / conditions are factored into ratings because you're climbing on the result of the weather)
I see the point you're trying to make but it's wrong. The weather doesn't change the grade, it just means you climbed a route in suboptimal conditions. Weather should never make a route easier. If it does, the route was overgraded.
Routes have not been graded based on their hardest move in the US in a long time, and I don't believe they ever were in French route grades. They are based on the difficulty of climbing them, whether that stems from a single hard move or from an insane endurance factor or from both.
You don't have to "agree with the concept of increasing a rating based on fatigue or the sustained nature of the climb" but it's the basis for both the US and French route rating systems, and the rest of the world agrees with it.
Not specifically to diss you, but this will make a hell of a lot more sense to you when and if you climb harder than 5.8 or 5.9. I've fallen off of 5.10 jugs at the top of a 5.13 route and off of probably a 5.9 mantel at the top of a 5.12 route due to how stupendously pumped I've been. Sport routes all have "technical cruxes" which are the hardest moves but many also have "redpoint cruxes" which are the hardest moves to do on redpoint, and are frequently easier moves much higher on the climb that are just plain harder to do because of how pumped you are by then.
josh
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jun 22, 2005, 1:02 PM
Post #43 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
[quote="overlord"]In reply to: In reply to: but the new rating way takes fatigue into consideration and the grades are thus much more consistant. So a route with sustained 5.9 moves can now be called a 5.10+ route? I guess I just don't agree with the concept of increasing a rating based on fatigue or the sustained nature of the climb.
Reno's point is that routes have historically been rated according to their hardest moves. We're seeing a push to change that in recent years, to take into account a cumulative rating. Personally, I think that makes sense for many of the reasons cited above on this page.
But let's also not forget that ratings are entirely subjective. They're specific to the area, much like ski slopes. When I go to, say, Devils Tower, where routes are rated old school, I know to plan my attempts accordingly. Going to the Red? OK, I know what to expect. Like ethics and style, I think ratings decisions like this are best left to the local community.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jun 22, 2005, 1:04 PM
Post #44 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: In reply to: but the new rating way takes fatigue into consideration and the grades are thus much more consistant. So a route with sustained 5.9 moves can now be called a 5.10+ route? I guess I just don't agree with the concept of increasing a rating based on fatigue or the sustained nature of the climb.
Reno's point is that routes have historically been rated according to their hardest moves. We're seeing a push to change that in recent years, to take into account a cumulative rating. Personally, I think that makes sense for many of the reasons cited above on this page.
But let's also not forget that ratings are entirely subjective. They're specific to the area, much like ski slopes. When I go to, say, Devils Tower, where routes are rated old school, I know to plan my attempts accordingly. Going to the Red? OK, I know what to expect. Like ethics and style, I think ratings decisions like this are best left to the local community.
|
|
|
|
|
steezy
Jun 24, 2005, 6:19 AM
Post #45 of 45
(17345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2005
Posts: 92
|
Sickie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
