|
petsfed
Apr 13, 2009, 2:43 PM
Post #1 of 39
(9173 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
I mean objectively, which crack size tends to have the hardest grades? I know, some people struggle with offwidths (I was told the crux move on Wounded Knee, a 10+ on Pistol Whipped, was the knee jam, and not the thin hands bit), but its rare to find a bonafide 5.13 offwidth. I've never seen a 5.13 handcrack that wasn't a boulder problem (and they had harder starts and finishes). Then again, I've never seen a ringlock roof either. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 13, 2009, 3:09 PM
Post #2 of 39
(9148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
face. face climbs are definitely the hardest cracks. I have no idea.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb
Apr 13, 2009, 4:03 PM
Post #3 of 39
(9090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2004
Posts: 832
|
So face climbs would be cracks wider then 9 feet? Is Master Blaster (Ben Gilkison's 13c roof crack in zion ) a ring lock roof? From my limited experience, my vote goes for tips/incipient seams but those almost stop being crack climbs.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Apr 13, 2009, 4:07 PM
Post #4 of 39
(9083 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
The ones you're having the least fun in! I'm certainly no expert on hard cracks... I'm certainly no expert period.... I'd be inclined to say the harder cracks are those that are for the most part just seams with occasional flared slots that are a little wider than fingers, and with sufficient room for a few marginal placements once you've used them as holds.
|
|
|
|
|
Alphaboth
Apr 13, 2009, 4:07 PM
Post #5 of 39
(9081 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2008
Posts: 116
|
Yeah, thin cracks, ring locks only 1 knuckle, overhung, they beg you to climb them. I guess i've just seen quite a few thin, overhung cracks that have yet to be free climbed.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Apr 13, 2009, 4:12 PM
Post #6 of 39
(9077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
Well, I suppose you could go through the entire Indian Creek, Devil's Tower, and Yosemite guidebooks and build a spreadsheet and do a cluster analysis...... Realistically, I'd suggest that ring-locks probably shut down the largest number of climbers, but that gets pretty dependent on finger size rather than crack size. Another contender are offwidths that require some sort of hand-stacking. I agree that on some of the hard routes at IC, the grade stems more from a boulder problem move (can you say side-ways dyno?), but an awful lot are just pure endurance problems.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Apr 13, 2009, 4:28 PM
Post #7 of 39
(9066 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
petsfed wrote: I mean objectively, which crack size tends to have the hardest grades? I know, some people struggle with offwidths (I was told the crux move on Wounded Knee, a 10+ on Pistol Whipped, was the knee jam, and not the thin hands bit), but its rare to find a bonafide 5.13 offwidth. I've never seen a 5.13 handcrack that wasn't a boulder problem (and they had harder starts and finishes). Then again, I've never seen a ringlock roof either. Any thoughts? way subjective. A few observations, though. First, there are hand cracks that go out roofs that would rate 5.13 purely for endurance. The full version of the crackhouse is definitely 5.13, and there has never been any debate on that. Like you said, this is a boulder problem, though. I can think of a couple monster roof cracks in the Southeast that are nothing but hands, and get 12+. There are also two other variables beyond just width and size for cracks: steepness, and the distance between locks. You have to take that into account when thinking of hardest overall cracks. But, just for simple size, the overall hardest size is usually regarded as off-fingers (not to be confused with ringlocks), which is that middle ground between a ringlock and a fingerlock. For me, and most other average-sized males, this would be a large .5 camalot. A sustained roof of this size (I do not know of any specific routes) would be well into the 5.13+ or higher range. Less-than tips cracks are also pretty hard (Rodden's Meltdown), but they really start blurring the line between face climbing skills and pure jamming.
(This post was edited by camhead on Apr 13, 2009, 4:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Apr 13, 2009, 5:21 PM
Post #8 of 39
(9015 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
for me it is definitely the first knuckle and tips cracks. i've worked on the .5 camalot to .75 camalot sizes quite a bit, so they are starting to feel more comfortable. also, you can at least barely get your toes in the ringlock sizes. not so much in the blue tcu/green alien sizes. OW sizes aren't too bad for the most part, although that green big bro - too big to stack, too small to get a locker wing is still kind of brutal.
|
|
|
|
|
krusher4
Apr 13, 2009, 5:30 PM
Post #9 of 39
(9008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2005
Posts: 997
|
ring-locks and wide flared cracks....hate them!!!...yet love them at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Apr 13, 2009, 6:00 PM
Post #10 of 39
(8986 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
I would say you have to rule out tips/seams because then it is just a question of what a crack is. Same with non-continuous cracks and flares. So for splitter cracks that are fingerlocks or bigger: Yea, loose fingers is probably the hardest (not much feet) with ringlocks a close second (slightly better feet). I find the hardest is OW is just below knee size. Too big for fist jams, but you can't get your knee in. There is another tough size just below squeeze chimney (too small to get the hip in). Too big for stacks and too big for knee locks. Awkward size for feet. Too lazy to look the grade up, but Owl Roof in Yosemite looks like it would be a pretty mean OW.
(This post was edited by sspssp on Apr 13, 2009, 6:02 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
graniteboy
Apr 13, 2009, 6:43 PM
Post #11 of 39
(8952 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 1092
|
Well...ask a stupid question..... Rurp cracks....definitely rurp cracks.....I have the hardest time trying to use the hammer to pound my fingertips into those damned things......
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Apr 13, 2009, 7:03 PM
Post #12 of 39
(8940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
sspssp wrote: I would say you have to rule out tips/seams because then it is just a question of what a crack is. Same with non-continuous cracks and flares. So for splitter cracks that are fingerlocks or bigger: Yea, loose fingers is probably the hardest (not much feet) with ringlocks a close second (slightly better feet). I find the hardest is OW is just below knee size. Too big for fist jams, but you can't get your knee in. There is another tough size just below squeeze chimney (too small to get the hip in). Too big for stacks and too big for knee locks. Awkward size for feet. Too lazy to look the grade up, but Owl Roof in Yosemite looks like it would be a pretty mean OW. I dunno, that flared-too-big-for-stacks size chewed my ass for breakfast on a 10c last fall, so maybe it just *feels* harder. I have to say that baggy fingers in a corner feels not so bad to me, although there has to be good footholds or pods present. I don't really want to think about overhanging baggy fingers, or a baggy fingers splitter. That sounds just heinous. Ringlocks are starting to feel easier for me, although I've been doing mostly ringlocks in offsets. Coyne Crack Simulator, for instance, felt pretty casual, but it is really short. Again, it seems to be the availability of footholds on cracks to small to easily jam that make all the difference.
(This post was edited by petsfed on Apr 13, 2009, 7:15 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
chanceboarder
Apr 13, 2009, 7:21 PM
Post #13 of 39
(8923 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1348
|
I think my sig says it all. "There are two grades when you climb crack, GOOD and ANATOMICALLY INCORRECT."
(This post was edited by chanceboarder on Apr 13, 2009, 7:21 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Apr 13, 2009, 8:59 PM
Post #14 of 39
(8857 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
petsfed wrote: Ringlocks are starting to feel easier for me, although I've been doing mostly ringlocks in offsets. Coyne Crack Simulator, for instance, felt pretty casual, but it is really short. heh. Coyne Crack Simulator IS casual. However, I do agree that ringlocks feel significantly easier for me right now than baggy fingers. edited to fix cheesetit
(This post was edited by camhead on Apr 13, 2009, 11:33 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Apr 13, 2009, 10:02 PM
Post #15 of 39
(8816 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
camhead wrote: petsfed wrote: Ringlocks are starting to feel easier for me, although I've been doing mostly ringlocks in offsets. Coyne Crack Simulator, for instance, felt pretty casual, but it is really short. heh. Coyne Crack Simulator IS casual. However, I do agree that ringlocks feel significantly easier for me right now than baggy fingers. Interesting cheesetitting there. I was surprised at how easy it felt, considering how much difficulty I've had with that size. Ask angry about my flailing on something at Maverick Buttress the day of your wedding. I won't deny that its casual, I'm just saying that I didn't expect it to be that way considering the size. I usually feel much more secure on baggy fingers.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 13, 2009, 10:24 PM
Post #16 of 39
(8794 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
petsfed wrote: camhead wrote: petsfed wrote: Ringlocks are starting to feel easier for me, although I've been doing mostly ringlocks in offsets. Coyne Crack Simulator, for instance, felt pretty casual, but it is really short. heh. Coyne Crack Simulator IS casual. However, I do agree that ringlocks feel significantly easier for me right now than baggy fingers. Interesting cheesetitting there. I was surprised at how easy it felt, considering how much difficulty I've had with that size. Ask angry about my flailing on something at Maverick Buttress the day of your wedding. I won't deny that its casual, I'm just saying that I didn't expect it to be that way considering the size. I usually feel much more secure on baggy fingers. Coyne Crack Simulator is simply way way WAY easier than Coyne Crack. That's all there is to it. There's absolutely no need for a single ringlock/off-fingers on CCS. But unless you've got really little hands, Coyne Crack has at least a solid 20 feet of either ringlocks or a brutal layback that's hard to place gear from and hard to get back into the crack from. Brutal! GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 13, 2009, 10:26 PM
Post #17 of 39
(8790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Oh, and to answer the OP, objectively, the answer simply has to be tips cracks. GO
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Apr 13, 2009, 11:20 PM
Post #18 of 39
(8776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
cracklover wrote: Coyne Crack Simulator is simply way way WAY easier than Coyne Crack. That's all there is to it. There's absolutely no need for a single ringlock/off-fingers on CCS. I disagree. I could never get the tight hands jam to feel secure enough to place gear off of. I've got the gobies to prove it. My hand size is such that two ringlocks for the pitch were necessary. Jesus, I'm arguing about the difficulty of a second rate, 40 foot, mostly hand-crack. How did it come to this?
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Apr 13, 2009, 11:34 PM
Post #19 of 39
(8766 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
whoa, I have no idea how that cheesetit happened. what route at Maverick Buttress was it, Petsfed? Was it that 11+ that has the final ten feet of rings? That thing is awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Apr 14, 2009, 12:06 AM
Post #20 of 39
(8745 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
Yeah. Son of a bitch ate my lunch. The mostly hands thing to the left that went on forever felt much easier than that thing. The place is unlikely considering what else is on Wall Street.
(This post was edited by petsfed on Apr 14, 2009, 12:07 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 14, 2009, 3:57 PM
Post #21 of 39
(8637 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
camhead wrote: But, just for simple size, the overall hardest size is usually regarded as off-fingers (not to be confused with ringlocks), which is that middle ground between a ringlock and a fingerlock. For me, and most other average-sized males, this would be a large .5 camalot. A sustained roof of this size (I do not know of any specific routes) would be well into the 5.13+ or higher range. Huh. I must be really shitty at ringlocks, then. Because I find I get way more power from something that's just over fingers, where if I jam my thumb under the bottom knuckle of the pointer finger as far as it'll go (usually not very far, otherwise it'd be a ringlock) and torque like crazy, it's almost as secure as a regular fingerlock. Whereas I find that the wider the ringlock gets, the more absolute and total crap it is, until finally I can get a super-thin hand, and it improves dramatically. Or did you mean that your feet are just that much more useless when you lose that 1/4 inch and go from ringlocks down to off-fingers? GO
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Apr 14, 2009, 4:12 PM
Post #22 of 39
(8623 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
cracklover wrote: camhead wrote: But, just for simple size, the overall hardest size is usually regarded as off-fingers (not to be confused with ringlocks), which is that middle ground between a ringlock and a fingerlock. For me, and most other average-sized males, this would be a large .5 camalot. A sustained roof of this size (I do not know of any specific routes) would be well into the 5.13+ or higher range. Huh. I must be really shitty at ringlocks, then. Because I find I get way more power from something that's just over fingers, where if I jam my thumb under the bottom knuckle of the pointer finger as far as it'll go (usually not very far, otherwise it'd be a ringlock) and torque like crazy, it's almost as secure as a regular fingerlock. Whereas I find that the wider the ringlock gets, the more absolute and total crap it is, until finally I can get a super-thin hand, and it improves dramatically. Or did you mean that your feet are just that much more useless when you lose that 1/4 inch and go from ringlocks down to off-fingers? GO heh, sounds like we each need to work on something, Gabe! I was talking about just pure sizes, regardless of feet, although in pure splitters the feet are obvously a bit better for big ringlock cracks (.75 camalots for me). But yeah, I am not that good at the size just bigger than fingerlocks (.5 camalot for me). My last hard project, still unsent, had a crux of two or three moves off of that precise size, about 40 degrees overhung. I had a real hard time with it.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Apr 14, 2009, 4:50 PM
Post #23 of 39
(8600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
I have an easier time conceptualizing pulling outward on a ringlock than on a fingerstack. The very premise of a splitter black alien roof kind of frightens me though.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 14, 2009, 5:02 PM
Post #24 of 39
(8585 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
camhead wrote: cracklover wrote: camhead wrote: But, just for simple size, the overall hardest size is usually regarded as off-fingers (not to be confused with ringlocks), which is that middle ground between a ringlock and a fingerlock. For me, and most other average-sized males, this would be a large .5 camalot. A sustained roof of this size (I do not know of any specific routes) would be well into the 5.13+ or higher range. Huh. I must be really shitty at ringlocks, then. Because I find I get way more power from something that's just over fingers, where if I jam my thumb under the bottom knuckle of the pointer finger as far as it'll go (usually not very far, otherwise it'd be a ringlock) and torque like crazy, it's almost as secure as a regular fingerlock. Whereas I find that the wider the ringlock gets, the more absolute and total crap it is, until finally I can get a super-thin hand, and it improves dramatically. Or did you mean that your feet are just that much more useless when you lose that 1/4 inch and go from ringlocks down to off-fingers? GO heh, sounds like we each need to work on something, Gabe! I was talking about just pure sizes, regardless of feet, although in pure splitters the feet are obvously a bit better for big ringlock cracks (.75 camalots for me). But yeah, I am not that good at the size just bigger than fingerlocks (.5 camalot for me). My last hard project, still unsent, had a crux of two or three moves off of that precise size, about 40 degrees overhung. I had a real hard time with it. Interesting. So maybe it's just me that has an easier time with off fingers. Now that I think of it, that might make sense. When I lived in Boston, there was a gym I frequented that had a crack circuit I did. The hardest of the cracks for me was a 10 degree overhanging off-fingers crack. It took me the better part of a year, and plenty of blood, before I could send that sucker consistently. Apparently that actually paid dividends in the real world. Who knew! Too bad the 10 degree overhanging offwidth didn't help as much. I can leavittate great, but two inches bigger or smaller, and I still royally suck at offwidths. GO
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 14, 2009, 5:08 PM
Post #25 of 39
(8580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
BTW, slightly off-topic, but not totally. I've always thought that hard cracks are under-graded. The hardest, most brutal, in your face, flaring, steep, hard-to-get-into cracks I've seen are always 5.13. That just seems wrong to me. To get into the 5.14 range, it seems that you have to get into cracks so small that you're really face climbing. Are hard crack climbers all sandbaggers? Or do crack climbers have an inferiority complex? Or are there just no crack climbers who are strong enough to climb 5.14? Or is crack climbing just inherently so easy, that the hardest it can get is 5.13? GO
|
|
|
|
|
|