|
kfc6936
Mar 3, 2008, 7:05 PM
Post #1 of 26
(3275 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2007
Posts: 42
|
rite now i redpoint at a 5.9 and im going to do some bouldering for the first time roughly what would the rating be in the v
|
|
|
|
|
gogounou
Mar 3, 2008, 7:12 PM
Post #2 of 26
(3268 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2006
Posts: 542
|
Depending on where you're climbing, as it goes without saying that these grades are subjective: VB or V0-.
|
|
|
|
|
dhaulagiri
Mar 3, 2008, 9:30 PM
Post #3 of 26
(3215 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2003
Posts: 236
|
Don't let that discourage you though. Depending on the bouldering areas and your strengths right now you might have some surprising success on V1s or harder!
|
|
|
|
|
dudemanbu
Mar 3, 2008, 11:46 PM
Post #4 of 26
(3177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 941
|
Well, my girlfriend can onsight most 5.9's, and redpoint 10's. That puts her at about your range. She can do v1's and with some work v2's, so in your case you should shoot for v0's and v1's in my opinion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with trying something a little over your head.
|
|
|
|
|
randomtask
Mar 4, 2008, 12:14 AM
Post #5 of 26
(3152 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 106
|
IMO, V grades don't translate well into decilmal grades. You can probab;y boulder harder than 5.9, so like some one said go for some v2s or v3s. I think VB is around 5.9, but see above about conversion!
|
|
|
|
|
dhaulagiri
Mar 4, 2008, 2:34 AM
Post #6 of 26
(3122 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2003
Posts: 236
|
Yeah, the translation near the bottom is not very precise. It works somewhat better as the grades get harder but that could be debated endlessly as well.
|
|
|
|
|
shurafa
Mar 18, 2008, 6:27 AM
Post #7 of 26
(2977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2005
Posts: 58
|
I would say problems randing anywhere from X7-V0 would be perfect for you.
|
|
|
|
|
seatbeltpants
Mar 25, 2008, 7:24 PM
Post #8 of 26
(2821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2008
Posts: 581
|
i've been climbing for a few months at the local gym and am at 5.9ish indoors, so headed out to do some bouldering over the weekend on some real rock. in my limited experience i completely back the comparisons given above. v0 was at my comfortable limit, for the most part, and most v1s were out of reach by a significant margin.
not sure how the "have rope have balls" vs "no rope no balls" modifier fits into the equation, but.
steve
|
|
|
|
|
justroberto
Mar 26, 2008, 4:36 AM
Post #9 of 26
(2773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876
|
seatbeltpants wrote: i've been climbing for a few months at the local gym and am at 5.9ish indoors, so headed out to do some bouldering over the weekend on some real rock. in my limited experience i completely back the comparisons given above. v0 was at my comfortable limit, for the most part, and most v1s were out of reach by a significant margin. not sure how the "have rope have balls" vs "no rope no balls" modifier fits into the equation, but. steve
|
|
|
|
|
PepsiTwist
Mar 31, 2008, 6:16 PM
Post #10 of 26
(2646 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2007
Posts: 26
|
randomtask wrote: IMO, V grades don't translate well into decilmal grades. You can probab;y boulder harder than 5.9, so like some one said go for some v2s or v3s. I think VB is around 5.9, but see above about conversion!
I dont know where you're from, but there is no way that a 5.9 climber is working V2/V3. They are working V0- and hoping to maybe get a V1.
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
Mar 31, 2008, 6:28 PM
Post #11 of 26
(2634 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
PepsiTwist wrote: I dont know where you're from, but there is no way that a 5.9 climber is working V2/V3. They are working V0- and hoping to maybe get a V1.
I disagree. There are different skills and strengths that lend themselves to each. I've met folks who boulder v3 comfortably and struggle on 5.9s - they have lots of power but almost no endurance. Likewise, a 5.9 climber might be able to pull three easy 5.11 moves in a row but unable to sustain that movement for any amount of time. Boulder problems are also a WHOLE lot easier to lay siege to, working every move until it's pure muscle memory.
I know plenty of boulder problems that I can struggle my way up, that if they occurred after 60 feet of climbing, I wouldn't have a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
PepsiTwist
Mar 31, 2008, 8:43 PM
Post #12 of 26
(2599 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2007
Posts: 26
|
Valarc wrote: PepsiTwist wrote: I dont know where you're from, but there is no way that a 5.9 climber is working V2/V3. They are working V0- and hoping to maybe get a V1. I disagree. There are different skills and strengths that lend themselves to each. I've met folks who boulder v3 comfortably and struggle on 5.9s - they have lots of power but almost no endurance. Likewise, a 5.9 climber might be able to pull three easy 5.11 moves in a row but unable to sustain that movement for any amount of time. Boulder problems are also a WHOLE lot easier to lay siege to, working every move until it's pure muscle memory. I know plenty of boulder problems that I can struggle my way up, that if they occurred after 60 feet of climbing, I wouldn't have a chance.
I appreciate your perspective but I couldnt disagree more. If you are climbing 5.9 and V3, then either that is a super sanbagged 5.9 or a way overgraded V3. A V3 is supposed to be comparable to a 5.11b. Now excluding one move wonders like dynos and such, there is no reason somebody with V3 bouldering strength cant make it through atleast 5.10b climbing. You make the argument that different people have different strengths, which is true, granted, but that V3 boulderer is going to have so much strength in reserve that they shouldnt even be getting winded on 5.9 climbs.
You show me a guy who boulders V3 and leads 5.9 and I'll show you a guy who is (not due to physical ability) way underachieving as a sport climber.
I dont know why there is so much confusion about bouldering grades, but it seems like there is mass confusion about how hard v1-v4 is actually supposed to be. I attribute this to the fact that 70% of the people going into the gym cant climb these grades, and therefore the route setters have to shift all the grades down at the lower end to make people feel as if they are accomplishing something. On the flip side, it seems like people have a slightly better idea of route difficulty. Maybe that's because the scale leaves for more room at the lower end and therefore there isnt as big a need to dilute routes 5.11 and under as you see with boulder problems V4 and under.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 31, 2008, 8:53 PM
Post #13 of 26
(2594 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
PepsiTwist wrote: Valarc wrote: PepsiTwist wrote: I dont know where you're from, but there is no way that a 5.9 climber is working V2/V3. They are working V0- and hoping to maybe get a V1. I disagree. There are different skills and strengths that lend themselves to each. I've met folks who boulder v3 comfortably and struggle on 5.9s - they have lots of power but almost no endurance. Likewise, a 5.9 climber might be able to pull three easy 5.11 moves in a row but unable to sustain that movement for any amount of time. Boulder problems are also a WHOLE lot easier to lay siege to, working every move until it's pure muscle memory. I know plenty of boulder problems that I can struggle my way up, that if they occurred after 60 feet of climbing, I wouldn't have a chance. I appreciate your perspective but I couldnt disagree more. If you are climbing 5.9 and V3, then either that is a super sanbagged 5.9 or a way overgraded V3. A V3 is supposed to be comparable to a 5.11b.
V3 is more like 5.11d.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
PepsiTwist
Mar 31, 2008, 8:56 PM
Post #14 of 26
(2589 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2007
Posts: 26
|
jt512 wrote: PepsiTwist wrote: Valarc wrote: PepsiTwist wrote: I dont know where you're from, but there is no way that a 5.9 climber is working V2/V3. They are working V0- and hoping to maybe get a V1. I disagree. There are different skills and strengths that lend themselves to each. I've met folks who boulder v3 comfortably and struggle on 5.9s - they have lots of power but almost no endurance. Likewise, a 5.9 climber might be able to pull three easy 5.11 moves in a row but unable to sustain that movement for any amount of time. Boulder problems are also a WHOLE lot easier to lay siege to, working every move until it's pure muscle memory. I know plenty of boulder problems that I can struggle my way up, that if they occurred after 60 feet of climbing, I wouldn't have a chance. I appreciate your perspective but I couldnt disagree more. If you are climbing 5.9 and V3, then either that is a super sanbagged 5.9 or a way overgraded V3. A V3 is supposed to be comparable to a 5.11b. V3 is more like 5.11d. Jay
Thanks for the clarification. I would agree with the 5.11d assessment. Just reinforces the point that bouldering at the low end is still supposed to be friggin hard. :)
|
|
|
|
|
flint
Mar 31, 2008, 9:00 PM
Post #15 of 26
(2589 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2007
Posts: 543
|
PepsiTwist wrote: Valarc wrote: PepsiTwist wrote: I dont know where you're from, but there is no way that a 5.9 climber is working V2/V3. They are working V0- and hoping to maybe get a V1. I disagree. There are different skills and strengths that lend themselves to each. I've met folks who boulder v3 comfortably and struggle on 5.9s - they have lots of power but almost no endurance. Likewise, a 5.9 climber might be able to pull three easy 5.11 moves in a row but unable to sustain that movement for any amount of time. Boulder problems are also a WHOLE lot easier to lay siege to, working every move until it's pure muscle memory. I know plenty of boulder problems that I can struggle my way up, that if they occurred after 60 feet of climbing, I wouldn't have a chance. I appreciate your perspective but I couldnt disagree more. If you are climbing 5.9 and V3, then either that is a super sanbagged 5.9 or a way overgraded V3. A V3 is supposed to be comparable to a 5.11b. Now excluding one move wonders like dynos and such, there is no reason somebody with V3 bouldering strength cant make it through atleast 5.10b climbing. You make the argument that different people have different strengths, which is true, granted, but that V3 boulderer is going to have so much strength in reserve that they shouldnt even be getting winded on 5.9 climbs. You show me a guy who boulders V3 and leads 5.9 and I'll show you a guy who is (not due to physical ability) way underachieving as a sport climber.
uhhhh. no
there are a many many guys out there that boulder v3 range that do not have the endurance to make there way up a 5.9. It is a lot less continuous effort to head up a 4 to 5 move v3 then a 90' sequence.
|
|
|
|
|
PepsiTwist
Mar 31, 2008, 9:19 PM
Post #16 of 26
(2575 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2007
Posts: 26
|
You're telling me that somebody who has the overall strength to pull an 11.d crux, cant make their way up a climb that is 8 grades easier? I dont care how continuous that 5.9 is, almost all those holds should be big enough to get a good rest on.
Though you're right that it is a less continuous effort to climb a 4-5 move boulder problem than a 90' lead climb. Then again, nobody is arguing to the contrary.
I'm gonna need more than anectodal evidence to override basic common sense and physiology on this one. It'd be like taking a high schooler who can run the mile in 4:30. It's not a stellar time, but it requires a bit of training from most of the population and it would still place the kid in the upper echelon compared to the general public. That would be comparable, in my mind, to a v3 boulder problem. On the flip side, a 5.9 would be likened to a very generic time that most individuals with even a little bit of training can achieve. Therefore in running terms it's probably close to 28 minutes for 3 miles. You take that 4:30 miler and I can guarantee you, no matter how bad their endurance, they are finishing 3 miles faster than 28 minutes. But, if you take that 28 minute 3 miler, there is no way in God's green earth that they are running in the mile in 4:30. The reason the 4:30 miler (v3 boulderer) can run 3 miles in 28 minutes (5.9 lead) without specifically training for it, is because the total required effort does not exhaust their strength reserves. They dont need to have stellar endurance because their strength and power is simply not being depleted.
If you think to the contrary, that's fine, but physiologically it doesnt make sense that a person with that much strength is producing an overabundance of lactic acid on a climb THAT far below their ability.
|
|
|
|
|
flint
Mar 31, 2008, 9:29 PM
Post #17 of 26
(2567 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2007
Posts: 543
|
first of all, it is hard to compare a sport like running and climbing. Secondly, Fun numbers don't really get your point across.
Just spend some time around beginner bouldering circuits and find some one pulling on overhung v3's and see if they ever climb routes, before long you will find one that says they barely route climb. Take them out on weekend and watch them hang up a 5.9...
Better yet, just only boulder for about three months yourself and feel the change that it makes in your route abilities...
j-
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Mar 31, 2008, 9:37 PM
Post #18 of 26
(2558 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
PepsiTwist wrote: You're telling me that somebody who has the overall strength to pull an 11.d crux, cant make their way up a climb that is 8 grades easier? I dont care how continuous that 5.9 is, almost all those holds should be big enough to get a good rest on.
I am, a lot of times, one of these people. I've climbed a bunch of V3s (even onsighted one or two at Hueco Tanks), some 4s, and some 5s, but I almost never get on a rope. If a route has an endurance component at all, I fall near the top. If my 5.9 or 5.10 is 40 feet long and steep, I'll cruise it, but if it's like most sport and trad climbing, I'll get tired, spend time wanking with gear, and fall.
Given, it takes me a lot less time to push through those if I work at it (a thing I decide to do every other year or so), but right now, in spite of hanging on to my v3s, I'd probably tumble right off an 11a.
There are tons of people at the other end of this problem, too. I was bouldering with a guy who climbed super-hard sport (he'd recently onsighted a hard 12 at Foster Falls, TN, Ethnic Cleansing, I think), and he had trouble with some 4s and 5s I walked.
|
|
|
|
|
PepsiTwist
Mar 31, 2008, 9:37 PM
Post #19 of 26
(2557 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2007
Posts: 26
|
Of course there isnt a correlation between running and climbing. It's an analogy. Though It seems as if you are now comparing indoor bouldering to outdoor route climbing which is hardly a fair comparison.
If I see somebody pulling a V3 at my gym, I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that they could hike 90% of the 5.9's in the gym.
|
|
|
|
|
flint
Mar 31, 2008, 9:47 PM
Post #20 of 26
(2543 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2007
Posts: 543
|
first i was still talking outdoor... but hey try it in the gym. People who only boulder will be able to move up bouldering grades to a v3 pretty quick, and i am sure they will have issues if put on their first or one of few routes. learning to rest on holds, making an efficient sequence, and being able to work the route in your head before you get 20 holds up makes a big difference, and these techniques aren't developed well when there are pads and head condoms on...
for now we will have to agree to disagree, but i have seen what i am arguing for, but i have no dought that you have seen the opposite as well.
j-
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Mar 31, 2008, 10:02 PM
Post #21 of 26
(2531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
PepsiTwist wrote: Of course there isnt a correlation between running and climbing. It's an analogy. Though It seems as if you are now comparing indoor bouldering to outdoor route climbing which is hardly a fair comparison. If I see somebody pulling a V3 at my gym, I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that they could hike 90% of the 5.9's in the gym.
If your gym is 30 feet tall and the bouldering grades are about right, then this is a fair bet. This thread doesn't seem to be strictly about gym climbing, though.
Also, have you seen how much donuts cost now, especially if you buy them individually? Dollars to donuts isn't all that much of a financial mismatch anymore. We need to swap out that stock phrase. Dollars to fun-size Snickers, maybe? Or dollars to nickels? In a time of economic upheaval, that one's got staying power.
|
|
|
|
|
PepsiTwist
Mar 31, 2008, 10:04 PM
Post #22 of 26
(2525 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2007
Posts: 26
|
styndall wrote: PepsiTwist wrote: Of course there isnt a correlation between running and climbing. It's an analogy. Though It seems as if you are now comparing indoor bouldering to outdoor route climbing which is hardly a fair comparison. If I see somebody pulling a V3 at my gym, I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that they could hike 90% of the 5.9's in the gym. If your gym is 30 feet tall and the bouldering grades are about right, then this is a fair bet. This thread doesn't seem to be strictly about gym climbing, though. Also, have you seen how much donuts cost now, especially if you buy them individually? Dollars to donuts isn't all that much of a financial mismatch anymore. We need to swap out that stock phrase. Dollars to fun-size Snickers, maybe? Or dollars to nickels? In a time of economic upheaval, that one's got staying power.
Haha, Dollars to nickels it is, then. :)
|
|
|
|
|
carbonrx8
Mar 31, 2008, 11:29 PM
Post #23 of 26
(2486 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2006
Posts: 267
|
PepsiTwist wrote: If I see somebody pulling a V3 at my gym, I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that they could hike 90% of the 5.9's in the gym.
V to YDS conversion is just so much bullshit. Who cares.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 31, 2008, 11:43 PM
Post #24 of 26
(2477 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
carbonrx8 wrote: PepsiTwist wrote: If I see somebody pulling a V3 at my gym, I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that they could hike 90% of the 5.9's in the gym. I dont think your logic is sound. I can do V4 inside and out pretty easily, and have gotten up some V5s with effort. I have never lead 5.8 clean. (5.6 trad, 5.7 inside. 5.8s are where I am at right now an am fine with it. Gimme a little TR aid climbing and I can pull down overhung 5.9-10, Slabby climbs and I can get into the mid-11s with a few tries. All on cheater TR of course.
That's got to be due to apprehension about leading. 5.8 is so easy it's not even on the V-scale.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
carbonrx8
Mar 31, 2008, 11:55 PM
Post #25 of 26
(2470 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2006
Posts: 267
|
jt512 wrote: carbonrx8 wrote: PepsiTwist wrote: If I see somebody pulling a V3 at my gym, I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that they could hike 90% of the 5.9's in the gym. I dont think your logic is sound. I can do V4 inside and out pretty easily, and have gotten up some V5s with effort. I have never lead 5.8 clean. (5.6 trad, 5.7 inside. 5.8s are where I am at right now an am fine with it. Gimme a little TR aid climbing and I can pull down overhung 5.9-10, Slabby climbs and I can get into the mid-11s with a few tries. All on cheater TR of course. That's got to be due to apprehension about leading. 5.8 is so easy it's not even on the V-scale. Jay
Yet I haven't met a v4 in or out that I couldn't figure. I am sure I dont look good doing it as a v7 climber might, but hey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
