|
happiegrrrl
Apr 22, 2009, 3:15 PM
Post #51 of 76
(6304 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
I don't know....I AM aware when the weight distribution is uneven, and it's me who has less. Whether it be the physical gear or some other, less tangible weight.
I am aware that I am having less, or more - experience, responsibility, pack weight, whatever.
However - NEVER underestimate the value of an interesting, positive personality as part of what gets carried or hauled, along the day! Nor the opposite. Gawd, those days do drag, unmercifully hot, when the partner is boring.......hahahaha
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 22, 2009, 3:29 PM
Post #52 of 76
(6295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
happiegrrrl wrote: However - NEVER underestimate the value of an interesting, positive personality as part of what gets carried or hauled, along the day! Nor the opposite. Gawd, those days do drag, unmercifully hot, when the partner is boring.......hahahaha
I would be privileged to climb with you happi, or clausti or GG... even if I had to tote EVERYTHING up to the cliff (so yall could lead me up routes I can't send myself hah!).
I mean that - priviledged.
I don't care what yall carry and that is the truth.
On 2nd thought - I'd sneak a rock in clausti's pack too!
(angus did that to me more than once haha)
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 22, 2009, 3:35 PM
Post #54 of 76
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
granite_grrl wrote: Gawd, this whole "carry half the load" stuff is bullshit. Let go of the egos people. GMburns, replace "outweighs by X pounds" and use "partner has a bum leg and is slow as fuck going up hills". Sometimes it just makes more sence for one person to take more of the load, or do more of the work. But I'll tell you, even though I had my friend carry a heavier load up to the crags when we went away climbing at Easter, we still took turns hanging the draws. And THAT'S where climbing equality comes in. Not that one was more capable than the other, but opportunities are open and I'm not berated as a woman when I take charge in the climbing arena.
My other climbing partner (Jello, in the blog) is much more fit than I am and can carry a lot more weight and still move faster than I can on any approach or descent. He often carries more weight on the descent because he knows that I have bad knees and move slowly. He is also a guide, and sometimes sees carrying the load as "practice."
However, I never ask him to do that. I always assume we'll be splitting the duties evenly. I outweight him by about 20lbs, and he's stronger than me. But I always pack the bags as if we're sharing the load. When he packs the bags, he packs his bag heavier because he wants to move and knows that I can't move as quickly as he can.
I think it's more about attitude. I've never asked someone to carry more than me unless I really couldn't do the job (i.e. - I was clearly hurt). Maybe you're OK giving more of the load to someone else when you're healthy. That's fine. I'm really not. I don't have a whole lot to offer people, so I pick up the slack where I can.
I guess I feel uncomfortable asking others to do something that I'm unwilling to do myself. I also prefer to climb with folks who are the same. For instance, I don't ask people to lead routes that I wouldn't lead myself, just so I could top rope it. If they want to do it, then fine, that's great. I'll TR it after they're done, but I won't ask them to do something that I'm not willing to do myself.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 22, 2009, 3:42 PM
Post #55 of 76
(6286 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
clausti wrote: dingus wrote: On 2nd thought - I'd sneak a rock in clausti's pack too! it would not be as heavy as the rocks i put in the rope bag that you so graciously offered to carry. 
So one time Angus sneaks a rock in my pack. This was 3 or 4 miles from the car. He went to go do the business and I found it and transferred it to his pack.
Halfway down I say,
"Goddamn this pack is heavy." I made a big show of adjusting it.
Angus later told me he knew I'd got to him when I did that.
"why didn't you check?" I asked.
"What, and give you the satisfaction? It was better to carry it."
Angus is cool.
So are you clausti. Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Apr 22, 2009, 3:55 PM
Post #56 of 76
(6279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
In reply to: Me? I want to (and have) be able to organize a wall climb, recruit a compatible and fairly equal climber, and have at it, on our own. I want a partner who sorta operates under the same principle. We will both want 'our share' of pretty much the whole experience - leads, first down on raps, hauling, and well, ferrying loads.
I think that is the ideal foundation for the most productive type of partnership. Two self-starters who are independently motivated in the pursuit and have every desire to take on their share of all responsibilities. That is the ideal.
What I've found though is that you can have two such individuals climbing together and still have a disparity in ability. Be it a physical or psychological limitation or perhaps simply a difference in experience or knowledge.
I think two such people (and perhaps your not saying any differently, I'm not sure that you are) can work together as equals, while contributing differently to all the individual functions that go to make up a day, a week, a month of climbing.
I've rarely had a bad day of climbing with a self-starter like you describe, no matter how our abilities matched up. The times I've enjoyed the least are when I'm with someone who I had to "drag to the cliff".
|
|
|
|
|
fresh
Apr 22, 2009, 4:06 PM
Post #57 of 76
(6274 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2007
Posts: 1199
|
when efficiency is a consideration, then you determine who carries what based on each person's ability in order to maximize efficiency for the team. if it's not a consideration, who cares? ten extra pounds shouldn't make much of a difference anyway if you're in shape and it's not a day-long approach. be considerate and communicate when you're having a bad day or something. if I'm climbing with someone who's completely oblivious about appropriate distribution of stuff then I'm probably not gonna be climbing with them for too long.
when I climb with my gf I usually make her carry the rope while I take the rack, which usually means I'm carrying a bit more than half of the weight. but she's probably working harder than me.
a year ago, I was basically teaching her everything. now, we're close to being equal partners so I try to relegate more stuff to her. my hope is that soon we'll be at the stage where decisions are made together, instead of me showing the way. I don't the point is equality with everything, the point is to work together as a team to accomplish each undertaking.
(This post was edited by fresh on Apr 22, 2009, 4:08 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
Apr 22, 2009, 4:35 PM
Post #58 of 76
(6260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
Just to throw in my 2p, I am a firm believer that men and women are equal, overall.
Men typically have much more upper body strength than women. Women typically have smaller fingers and better flexibility for those high foot holds! In my opinion it all evens itself out in the end.
As for gear, I prefer that my female partners share the load, however if I see someone struggling, I'll volunteer to take more of the load. Male or female.
I'm not quite sure where all of this massive flaming is coming from, truth be told.....
|
|
|
|
|
boadman
Apr 22, 2009, 7:15 PM
Post #59 of 76
(6232 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2003
Posts: 726
|
I think that the difference in performance in climbing between elite female climbers and elite male climbers is actually much smaller than in sports like Basketball. Has there ever been a Lyn Hill, Josune, Beth Rodden, etc. in basketball? I don't think that we'll see a professional woman basketball player playing in a men's league any time soon.
Also, in per capita terms, my experience at the crags is that there are representitive numbers of women cranking as hard as the men.
dingus wrote: OK. Consider basketball as a counterpoint... using some of the points made in this thread, basketball doesn't seem to be egalitarian by comparison. For both climbing and basketball - at the very pinnacle (haha) of performance, males dominate. Sorry, they just do, there is no arguing the point. Sure you can cite a woman or two who has held their own for a time but they are the exceptions. In climbing, as pointed out quite correctly in this thread, we men and women tend to mix it up a lot, sort of in our 'intermural league.' In basketball? You really don't see this much? You see guys playing guys - you don't see a lot of women if any at all, on these pickup teams. Using basketball I can easily see the difference in how climbers 'integrate' when compared to other sports. I suspect other adventure oriented sports (do the DEW!) have a similar dynamic as well? DMT |
|
|
|
|
sendit1023
Apr 22, 2009, 8:39 PM
Post #60 of 76
(6216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2009
Posts: 2
|
Wow, thanks for the responses. I just got back from a trip so sorry it's taken so long. My post was more about comparing climbing to older sports (such as basketball) which were designed more for the male's body than the female's. My view is that a sport like rock climbing provides an opportunity for both genders to perform to the best of their ability. I'm not so much worried about who carries what share of the load (I agree with those who said I WANT to carry half of the load, even though my partner may be heavier or stronger than I am).
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Apr 23, 2009, 1:29 AM
Post #61 of 76
(6200 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
I've rad some historical accounts on rock climbing(not mountaineering) that indicate women were fairly involved, and leading, in the earlier eras.
Not to the same number as men, but still - not as girlfriends being hauled up routes in terror or just to please their man.
It seems there was a decrease in the ration of women to men, and then women came back in numbers more recently. Look at some of the old routes and you'll see a number of the FA's include women.
|
|
|
|
|
lvpyne
Apr 23, 2009, 1:54 AM
Post #62 of 76
(6194 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2005
Posts: 207
|
happiegrrrl wrote: I've rad some historical accounts on rock climbing(not mountaineering) that indicate women were fairly involved, and leading, in the earlier eras.
One of the most interesting books I've read about the history of climbing was a booked edited by David Mazel called: "Mountaineering Women: Stories by Early Climbers." The book has everything -- great quotes from Victorian mountaineering/trekking expeditions where "Mrs. Cole" climbed the Aeggischhorn and "saucily declined the proffered help" to a chapter about Gwen Moffat's first season as a professional guide in 1953.
The bibliography for the book is fascinating, too -- a great source for accounts of climbs women did between 1900-1920 that were published in different magazines (i.e. Harper's Bazaar and the Ladies Scottish Climbing Journal.) One of the most interesting articles from there was one by Herman Matteson (published in 1922, Sunset), entitled "How Much of a Coward Are You? A Woman Mountain Guide Tells of her Experiences with Fear on the High Ridges" -- about Alma Wagen, the early professional guide on Mount Rainier.
|
|
|
|
|
clee03m
Apr 27, 2009, 5:25 PM
Post #63 of 76
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 785
|
clausti wrote: i actually deliberately left out the lower ranges because it seems like that is more trad, and at those levels it's mostly guys chuffing around with it. the women that i know that climb 5.7 at their limit only follow. and i don't know any women who lead trad who lead less than 5.9.
I find this observation interesting. I know women trad leaders who lead less than 5.9's. But other than new trad leaders, I think most women trad leaders I know also fall into climbing 5.9 and harder. I wonder why this is...
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Apr 27, 2009, 6:26 PM
Post #64 of 76
(6143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
clee03m wrote: clausti wrote: i actually deliberately left out the lower ranges because it seems like that is more trad, and at those levels it's mostly guys chuffing around with it. the women that i know that climb 5.7 at their limit only follow. and i don't know any women who lead trad who lead less than 5.9. I find this observation interesting. I know women trad leaders who lead less than 5.9's. But other than new trad leaders, I think most women trad leaders I know also fall into climbing 5.9 and harder. I wonder why this is...
some men trad climb like it's fucking golf- once a month/to get away from their wives. and those guys never climb harder than like 5.8. i don't know any women who do that.
women who lead trad are not generally the kind of women who dabble in climbing. they're usually pretty into it.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 27, 2009, 6:51 PM
Post #65 of 76
(6137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
clausti wrote: clee03m wrote: clausti wrote: i actually deliberately left out the lower ranges because it seems like that is more trad, and at those levels it's mostly guys chuffing around with it. the women that i know that climb 5.7 at their limit only follow. and i don't know any women who lead trad who lead less than 5.9. I find this observation interesting. I know women trad leaders who lead less than 5.9's. But other than new trad leaders, I think most women trad leaders I know also fall into climbing 5.9 and harder. I wonder why this is... some men trad climb like it's fucking golf- once a month/to get away from their wives. and those guys never climb harder than like 5.8. i don't know any women who do that. women who lead trad are not generally the kind of women who dabble in climbing. they're usually pretty into it.
The vast majority of the women I know who trad lead only trad lead up to 5.9. I know a couple of women who could probably trad lead harder than that, but I don't think they do very often.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Apr 27, 2009, 7:00 PM
Post #66 of 76
(6133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
happiegrrrl wrote: I've rad some historical accounts on rock climbing(not mountaineering) that indicate women were fairly involved, and leading, in the earlier eras. Not to the same number as men, but still - not as girlfriends being hauled up routes in terror or just to please their man. It seems there was a decrease in the ration of women to men, and then women came back in numbers more recently. Look at some of the old routes and you'll see a number of the FA's include women.
Happi--
Yes, that seems to be the case. Women's per capita participation in climbing in North America probably peaked in the late 1930s before falling off to a low somehwere in the '70s or '80s. Britain seems to have followed a similar arc, and the best guess is that the rest of western Europe followed suit.
That's basically the story of women's participation in public sphere stuff generally-- graduate school, professional occupations, etc. --with a brief exceptional spike during WW2.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Apr 27, 2009, 7:01 PM
Post #67 of 76
(6131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: clausti wrote: clee03m wrote: clausti wrote: i actually deliberately left out the lower ranges because it seems like that is more trad, and at those levels it's mostly guys chuffing around with it. the women that i know that climb 5.7 at their limit only follow. and i don't know any women who lead trad who lead less than 5.9. I find this observation interesting. I know women trad leaders who lead less than 5.9's. But other than new trad leaders, I think most women trad leaders I know also fall into climbing 5.9 and harder. I wonder why this is... some men trad climb like it's fucking golf- once a month/to get away from their wives. and those guys never climb harder than like 5.8. i don't know any women who do that. women who lead trad are not generally the kind of women who dabble in climbing. they're usually pretty into it. The vast majority of the women I know who trad lead only trad lead up to 5.9. I know a couple of women who could probably trad lead harder than that, but I don't think they do very often.
that's because you climb at the Gunks, where everyone climbs below 5.9. In most of the rest of the climbing world, trad below 5.8 is merely choss-gullying.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Apr 27, 2009, 7:10 PM
Post #68 of 76
(6123 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
camhead wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: clausti wrote: clee03m wrote: clausti wrote: i actually deliberately left out the lower ranges because it seems like that is more trad, and at those levels it's mostly guys chuffing around with it. the women that i know that climb 5.7 at their limit only follow. and i don't know any women who lead trad who lead less than 5.9. I find this observation interesting. I know women trad leaders who lead less than 5.9's. But other than new trad leaders, I think most women trad leaders I know also fall into climbing 5.9 and harder. I wonder why this is... some men trad climb like it's fucking golf- once a month/to get away from their wives. and those guys never climb harder than like 5.8. i don't know any women who do that. women who lead trad are not generally the kind of women who dabble in climbing. they're usually pretty into it. The vast majority of the women I know who trad lead only trad lead up to 5.9. I know a couple of women who could probably trad lead harder than that, but I don't think they do very often. that's because you climb at the Gunks, where everyone climbs below 5.9. In most of the rest of the climbing world, trad below 5.8 is merely choss-gullying.
That's probably a fair assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Apr 27, 2009, 10:21 PM
Post #69 of 76
(6088 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: camhead wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: clausti wrote: clee03m wrote: clausti wrote: i actually deliberately left out the lower ranges because it seems like that is more trad, and at those levels it's mostly guys chuffing around with it. the women that i know that climb 5.7 at their limit only follow. and i don't know any women who lead trad who lead less than 5.9. I find this observation interesting. I know women trad leaders who lead less than 5.9's. But other than new trad leaders, I think most women trad leaders I know also fall into climbing 5.9 and harder. I wonder why this is... some men trad climb like it's fucking golf- once a month/to get away from their wives. and those guys never climb harder than like 5.8. i don't know any women who do that. women who lead trad are not generally the kind of women who dabble in climbing. they're usually pretty into it. The vast majority of the women I know who trad lead only trad lead up to 5.9. I know a couple of women who could probably trad lead harder than that, but I don't think they do very often. that's because you climb at the Gunks, where everyone climbs below 5.9. In most of the rest of the climbing world, trad below 5.8 is merely choss-gullying. That's probably a fair assessment.
really, though, that probably does play a large part. the gunks is highly exceptional in its provenance of routes that are sub-5.8 and are actually decent climbing and not a ledge ladder or a gully.
|
|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
Apr 27, 2009, 10:57 PM
Post #70 of 76
(6079 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
Word.... I remember one 5.3+ which I took some newbies on where only half the group could get up it.... No Picnic I believe it was called!
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Apr 27, 2009, 11:01 PM
Post #71 of 76
(6078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
desertwanderer81 wrote: Word.... I remember one 5.3+ which I took some newbies on where only half the group could get up it.... No Picnic I believe it was called!
beginner's delight- what a beautiful route! unbelievably crisp moves, at 5.3.
|
|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
Apr 27, 2009, 11:07 PM
Post #72 of 76
(6074 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
clausti wrote: desertwanderer81 wrote: Word.... I remember one 5.3+ which I took some newbies on where only half the group could get up it.... No Picnic I believe it was called! beginner's delight- what a beautiful route! unbelievably crisp moves, at 5.3.
I agree! That one is pretty ass kicking.
I was actually talking about this climb though:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/routes/North_America/United_States/New_York/Upstate/The_Gunks/The_Trapps/No_Picnic_25250.html
They call it a 5.4-..... I think when I did it they called it a 5.3+, heh.
The only 5.3 with an overhang in existance!!!
I miss gunks climbing, heh.
|
|
|
|
|
grantjk
Apr 28, 2009, 3:10 AM
Post #73 of 76
(6051 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2006
Posts: 76
|
"What's the difference between a Gunks 5.4 and a Gunks 5.7?......The 5.4 only has one 5.7 move in it."
Made me laugh when I heard it...definitely is the area with quality climbs at all grades.
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Apr 28, 2009, 11:11 AM
Post #74 of 76
(6036 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
clausti wrote: desertwanderer81 wrote: Word.... I remember one 5.3+ which I took some newbies on where only half the group could get up it.... No Picnic I believe it was called! beginner's delight- what a beautiful route! unbelievably crisp moves, at 5.3.
Climbed that for the first time last summer, truly, a gem...
|
|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
Apr 28, 2009, 8:51 PM
Post #75 of 76
(5998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
robbovius wrote: clausti wrote: desertwanderer81 wrote: Word.... I remember one 5.3+ which I took some newbies on where only half the group could get up it.... No Picnic I believe it was called! beginner's delight- what a beautiful route! unbelievably crisp moves, at 5.3. Climbed that for the first time last summer, truly, a gem...
Just about every climb at the gunks are gems ;) I would say that the ratio of Gems to "Meh" are 3:1.
Well that's my opinion at least.
Shame that the walls aren't a bit higher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
