|
Askew
Jan 16, 2008, 5:14 PM
Post #1 of 25
(4924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2008
Posts: 7
|
In an indoor gym, how important is the height of the climb? I've done some climbing but am not a rock spider extraordinaire. Too many other crazy sports I do. I was talking to a friend in Seattle about climbing and the subject came up of which was better, a long wall with many routes 30 ft in height, or a shorter wall with very tall routes say 70 ft in height.
\Askew/
(in an indoor gym)
(This post was edited by Askew on Jan 16, 2008, 5:21 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
sticky_fingers
Jan 16, 2008, 5:36 PM
Post #2 of 25
(4909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 420
|
By long and short, I'm assuming you mean the width of the wall, or how long the height spans. That said, there really is no right answer. Some short walls can be "harder" if the route has small holds, and the converse can be true of long routes. In general, the longer the route, the better for endurance.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jan 16, 2008, 5:43 PM
Post #3 of 25
(4899 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
Totally a matter of personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
natefaerber
Jan 16, 2008, 6:06 PM
Post #4 of 25
(4876 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2008
Posts: 1
|
I'm still a newbie to climbing, so my preference may differ from that of more experienced climbers. I prefer tall routes at lower difficulty (5.10a,5.10b) when I'm trying to practice my technique and work on my forearm stamina. I like shorter routes when I'm working to move up in difficulty and learn new techniques.
-nate
|
|
|
|
|
pro_alien
Jan 16, 2008, 10:10 PM
Post #5 of 25
(4837 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 256
|
Not that important to me. Most gyms are set up in existing buildings, so the ceiling's the limit.
A wide wall will accomodate more routes, and thus, more climbers...
|
|
|
|
|
Askew
Jan 16, 2008, 11:19 PM
Post #6 of 25
(4796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2008
Posts: 7
|
Yah I can see that. If it's new technique a fall is better close to the pads. Part of the thrill for me when I'm out on natural routes is being up there a ways. It also helps with endurance.
\Askew/
|
|
|
|
|
matterunomama
Jan 17, 2008, 12:44 AM
Post #7 of 25
(4759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2005
Posts: 419
|
I find 40-45 feet high to be good, but maybe that is because its what I'm used to in existing buildings.
I went to a gym once that has 60 foot-high routes but the routes were very boring so at 40 feet or so I was saying "Why bother with the last 20 feet-its more of the same, I don't see anything interesting coming up" Then I would come down. I'm more into "interesting" than endurance, but a 40-45 foot wall can easily have a "pump wall" on an arch or an overhang, and you're not down so soon that you feel unsatisfied.
Given the choice that you posed, I would rather do a 30 foot wall with lots of interesting routes than a boring 70 foot with going-going-going-whereisthisreallygoing.
Also, if you or your partner is working on a route, a 70 foot wall takes a loooong time. If building endurance is the goal you can always do laps on a 30 foot wall, and its still long enough to be somewhat engaging. I
The choice you pose is somewhat extremes-most gyms these days aim for 40-50 feet for both custoer satisfaction and business reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
wax
Jan 17, 2008, 1:56 PM
Post #8 of 25
(4701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 113
|
it all depends on the route setter. i used to climb at a gym with 4 different wall systems (pyramide, walltopia, stuff the mimiced real rock and typical painted plywood), but fo the longest time, only one real route setter (i think there was another guy, but he sucked huge).
anyway, it got boring real fast as the route setter didn't do much in the way of variety and so i ended up switching gyms.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Jan 17, 2008, 2:46 PM
Post #9 of 25
(4690 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
I can build a long wall in my house....no problem, but now, a Tall Wall...that's what I'd pay my $$ for...
|
|
|
|
|
Askew
Jan 17, 2008, 4:50 PM
Post #10 of 25
(4659 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2008
Posts: 7
|
I remember one climb really well and part of it was the height and challenge of it, Monkey Face. That memory was one of the reasons I thought a higher route would be more interesting. Yes, the route setter is a as important, but given equal quality routes, one that gets me to the point I notice when I look down, is more engaging.
Part of my draw to a higher route is trying to make my gym experience more than just a workout.
\Askew/
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jan 17, 2008, 6:06 PM
Post #11 of 25
(4643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
Does not really matter.
For practical purposes, it is easier to find warehouses/commercial buildings that would accommodate 20-30 ft tall walls all around the perimeter than it is to find a building with ceilings tall enough to build a 100 ft wall. And I'm guessing that it is more expensive to build a taller wall b/c of the logistics of hauling panels up high, etc. So because most gym owners don't have the gold reserves and are trying to do this on a budget, you will see more places with walls in the 20-30 ft range.
"Tall" wall would be closer to the height of outdoor climbs, so you could say that you get a better approximation of outdoor climb in terms of endurance needed to climb, and you could put in a larger variety of moves in a single route if you have 80 ft to go, as opposed to 25 ft.
But on the other hand, nothing stops you from linking together a couple of different routes on a short gym wall to create a longer " total" route -- something I do quite often.
|
|
|
|
|
gymbo
Jan 17, 2008, 6:14 PM
Post #12 of 25
(4637 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 74
|
I've regularly climbed in a number of different gyms ranging from 24 feet to 60 feet. I definitely prefer the taller walls overall and think that anything under about 35 feet is almost not worth it for leading.
With the right route setting the best routes at the 24 foot gym were very enjoyable and challenging. However, it really took a great route to make if feel like the route was complete. 35 feet seems to be a good height where a good route setter can throw in enough variety to keep climbs interesting fairly consistently.
Another thing to consider is not just the height of the walls, but their configuration as well. Are they just straight or do they have bulges, roofs, chimneys, cracks, aretes and simulated natural features. I find a gym much more interesting when they can set fantastic stemming routes, routes that mix cracks and holds and require things like liebacks to complete the route.
Overall, I'll generally choose height over variety, but it really depends on the overall quality of the gym and it's route setters.
|
|
|
|
|
kletter1mann
Jan 18, 2008, 1:07 AM
Post #13 of 25
(4579 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2004
Posts: 121
|
Here's a gym owner's perspective....
If you ASK almost any climber and they'll say higher is better. And if you ask anybody if they make enough money, they'll say no.
The reality is different. Our gym is 40' high but the walls range from about 28' to the full 40'. On the top rope walls it's the medium height walls (roughly 34 ft) that get climbed the most, not the tallest. Features in the gym are similar regardless of height and the setters are the same. A small number of 70 ft routes is going to lack the variety of more short routes.
It seems like everybody's dream is 50 ft walls, and that's what I wanted too. Now I've concluded that anything over 40' is actually bad business. Taller just adds construction expense without adding to gym capacity at all. Taller is also harder to set. There are far better ways to spend your construction budget than 50 or 60 foot walls IMHO.
There's also incredible bullshit out there about wall height. Gym owners are notorious for extravagant claims. People's jugement of height also sucks. I've had super-experienced long time climbers look at our wall and argue that I'm wrong about the height - "it's not 40 ft, it's more like 50, I've been climbing for blah blah years." But I've got the blueprints :-)
-Dave
http://www.climbrockclub.com
|
|
|
|
|
wyoclimb
Jan 18, 2008, 1:49 AM
Post #14 of 25
(4564 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 12, 2007
Posts: 115
|
 try mixing it up climb up then just get fed a little slack & practice down climbing this will hopefully hardwire the moves in yer mind. Pretty soon you might enjoy downclimbing and that can ease alot of mental stress on the rock .Downclimbing is alot faster than rapping.If u can!
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Jan 18, 2008, 4:50 PM
Post #15 of 25
(4513 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
wyoclimb wrote: Downclimbing is alot faster than rapping.
Wow, you must either be a really fast climber or a really slow rapper.
|
|
|
|
|
Askew
Jan 18, 2008, 5:43 PM
Post #16 of 25
(4486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2008
Posts: 7
|
kletter1mann wrote: If you ASK almost any climber and they'll say higher is better. And if you ask anybody if they make enough money, they'll say no. The reality is different. Our gym is 40' high but the walls range from about 28' to the full 40'. On the top rope walls it's the medium height walls (roughly 34 ft) that get climbed the most, not the tallest. Features in the gym are similar regardless of height and the setters are the same. A small number of 70 ft routes is going to lack the variety of more short routes. It seems like everybody's dream is 50 ft walls, and that's what I wanted too. Now I've concluded that anything over 40' is actually bad business. Taller just adds construction expense without adding to gym capacity at all. Taller is also harder to set. There are far better ways to spend your construction budget than 50 or 60 foot walls IMHO. There's also incredible bullshit out there about wall height. Gym owners are notorious for extravagant claims. People's jugement of height also sucks. I've had super-experienced long time climbers look at our wall and argue that I'm wrong about the height - "it's not 40 ft, it's more like 50, I've been climbing for blah blah years." But I've got the blueprints :-) -Dave http://www.climbrockclub.com
I would have to agree that the concept of 'more is better' is pretty prevalent. It could certainly be a thing people say they want but in the end doesn't matter a lot. You have direct experience with it at your gym. Why do you think people do not climb the higher routes at your gym?
You can certainly have a greater number of routes with shorter, but surely you can't have as much variety as within a higher route.
From some of the response it seems to me that there are two camps, those that tend towards the gym as a place for exercise and practice, and those that would like to consider it more like event (tromping out someplace) climb. I think I look for some sense of accomplishment in my activities and have a hard time just exercising. That may be my draw to the higher routes, to feel that I have accomplished something similar to climbing some route outside. 70ft seems to bring me more enthusiasm, though I certainly admit that a 30 ft route could be harder than a 70ft. This assumes some equality between route settings.
\Askew/
|
|
|
|
|
matterunomama
Jan 18, 2008, 9:06 PM
Post #17 of 25
(4469 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2005
Posts: 419
|
Askew wrote: kletter1mann wrote: If you ASK almost any climber and they'll say higher is better. And if you ask anybody if they make enough money, they'll say no. The reality is different. Our gym is 40' high but the walls range from about 28' to the full 40'. On the top rope walls it's the medium height walls (roughly 34 ft) that get climbed the most, not the tallest. Features in the gym are similar regardless of height and the setters are the same. A small number of 70 ft routes is going to lack the variety of more short routes. It seems like everybody's dream is 50 ft walls, and that's what I wanted too. Now I've concluded that anything over 40' is actually bad business. Taller just adds construction expense without adding to gym capacity at all. Taller is also harder to set. There are far better ways to spend your construction budget than 50 or 60 foot walls IMHO. There's also incredible bullshit out there about wall height. Gym owners are notorious for extravagant claims. People's jugement of height also sucks. I've had super-experienced long time climbers look at our wall and argue that I'm wrong about the height - "it's not 40 ft, it's more like 50, I've been climbing for blah blah years." But I've got the blueprints :-) -Dave http://www.climbrockclub.comI would have to agree that the concept of 'more is better' is pretty prevalent. It could certainly be a thing people say they want but in the end doesn't matter a lot. You have direct experience with it at your gym. Why do you think people do not climb the higher routes at your gym? You can certainly have a greater number of routes with shorter, but surely you can't have as much variety as within a higher route. From some of the response it seems to me that there are two camps, those that tend towards the gym as a place for exercise and practice, and those that would like to consider it more like event (tromping out someplace) climb. I think I look for some sense of accomplishment in my activities and have a hard time just exercising. That may be my draw to the higher routes, to feel that I have accomplished something similar to climbing some route outside. 70ft seems to bring me more enthusiasm, though I certainly admit that a 30 ft route could be harder than a 70ft. This assumes some equality between route settings. \Askew/
I climb at Dave's gym (The Rock Club), and its not that people 'don't climb the higher routes'-what he said was that the most POPULAR routes are the 35 footers. The walls are busy all over.
In part that is because the Lead arch-which is huge and intimidating- is in the highest part in the central gym. You have to be a strong lead climber to do ost of the routes. Another reason, I think, is that the "permanent intermediate" kind of climber, the one who is physically strong and climbs 5.8/9 but is heavily favoring his arms over footwork and postioning , prefers to finish a shorter route but gets pumped out if he does a 5.9 that goes up->across->a little bit under arch->out the side, which ends up being as long as 70 feet in that gym! Theres a smaller arch that can give the same moves without the length.
35 feet up is enough to make it interesting, and thats what people choose a lot, but there are some nice 25-foot slab routes that are popular too. Those are good for clawing your way painfully up a route thats a grade above your usual-but you have a chance to finish it and you can still hear your friends giving you micro-beta from below! 35+ Its all good, with good setters.
|
|
|
|
|
itstoearly
Jan 18, 2008, 9:11 PM
Post #18 of 25
(4462 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2005
Posts: 166
|
I climb in a gym with 27 foot walls. I have seen someone set a "multipitch" climb on the top rope there. How it worked was, you climb the first route, come down immediately into a sitting position, sit start the next one, then lower down to a sitting position again, and climb the last "pitch". Good for a stamina workout (well, good for a 27 foot wall), and was a lot of fun.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Jan 18, 2008, 9:42 PM
Post #19 of 25
(4442 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
Askew wrote: I remember one climb really well and part of it was the height and challenge of it, Monkey Face.
Say more about your experience.
|
|
|
|
|
Askew
Jan 19, 2008, 12:02 AM
Post #20 of 25
(4420 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2008
Posts: 7
|
sidepull wrote: Say more about your experience.
I was visiting a friend in Seattle who does a lot of climbing. As I said, I tend to be the occasional climber and it’s often been with him. We’ve been friends since High school and have traveled all over the world together. He’s a member of Boalps and teaches some of the classes. We decided to go down to Smith Rock and spent several days there. My memory of details is pretty crappy, but I remember Monkey Face.
It’s a pillar of rock, although there is a cliff that it was part of at some time in the past. It is already a ways above the river valley and on the far side of the pillar you certainly get the feeling that you’re way up on something crazy. I’m not good enough to climb some of the harder routes (There are some climbs on it that, if I recall are extremely difficult) so I took the easier one. It was a great climb not as much for the difficulty but for the full sensory experience of it. When you look out it’s easy to have the feeling that you are climbing something out of fiction. The classic mile high pillar of rock. You feel like you’ve done something of mythic quality when you can stand up there and look off into the valley.
A bit on the dramatic side but that is what the feeling is, dramatic. It relates to part of what I said before about why people climb. I tend more towards the desire to feel I ‘did’ something. Just exercise is more difficult for me to enjoy.
\Askew/
|
|
|
|
|
tolman_paul
Feb 13, 2008, 11:20 PM
Post #21 of 25
(4117 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2005
Posts: 385
|
For a commercial gym, I'd want longer routes, as that's what I prefer to climb.
For a home wall where I'd honestly be doing a fair bit of bouldering and traversing I'd take width over height, though I'd still want some sections over 20'.
You don't always have a partner to belay you, so having the width to run laps on a traverse makes alot of sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Askew
Feb 14, 2008, 12:14 AM
Post #22 of 25
(4089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2008
Posts: 7
|
How much traverse do you like in a route? Is a pretty much straight line route with features ok, or do you want the traverse as well?
\Askew/
|
|
|
|
|
Hennessey
Feb 14, 2008, 12:46 AM
Post #23 of 25
(4068 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2007
Posts: 595
|
My gym is Go Vertical in Philly and they got walls ranging from 20'-45'. I like mid-size height to practice technique and harder routes I'm not use to. On the other hand I like to hop on the tallest walls to climb then down climb at low grades for endurance.
|
|
|
|
|
tolman_paul
Feb 14, 2008, 1:34 AM
Post #24 of 25
(4045 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2005
Posts: 385
|
To me a good wall has to be interesting, which means it needs all sorts of features. Trying to arbitrarily make a route long by going diagonally is lame. A little bit of traversing is fine, but it can't come across as contrived.
|
|
|
|
|
Askew
Feb 14, 2008, 3:08 AM
Post #25 of 25
(4023 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2008
Posts: 7
|
What do you think of this as a gym? The routes look pretty verticle but without much as far as features and different inclines and overhangs. Would this be worth traveling to over a more standard setup?
http://www.stoneworksrockgym.com
\Askew/
|
|
|
|
|
|
