|
lena_chita
Moderator
Oct 29, 2009, 6:39 PM
Post #51 of 96
(1863 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
granite_grrl wrote: In the last 3 years I have spent a reasonable amount of time time trad climbing at: The Gunks, the Red, the New, New Brunswick and Ontario. Though I spend very little time trad climbing at all anymore.....I just think that going back to the Gunks after spending so much time sport climbing wasn't that bad. Frankly, the most sandbagged* area on that short list has to be the New, where I keep getting my ass kicked. *I'm not a good crack climber, so obviously YMMV.
You know, there is something to it. Of the 3 places where I have climbed on gear (Red, New, Gunks) my best trad send at the New is the lowest grade of all three. I sent the same grade on gear at the Red and at the Gunks.
I am not a good crack climber either. Want to go to Indian Creek together and practice?  I got a cam for my birthday!
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Oct 29, 2009, 6:42 PM
Post #52 of 96
(1858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
camhead wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: camhead wrote: tks wrote: The commitment in trying a 5.10 on gear in a new place is totally different from trying a 5.10 bolted route at a new place. I don't know about your experience, but it certainly jumps out at me. Tom This is definitely true. I was discussing this with a friend the other day, about how difficult it is to be a truly consistent onsight climber of a certain grade at ALL areas of North America. I can think of plenty of 5.10s that I would definitely not onsight right now. I would be willing to bet that not even most pro climbers consistently onsight 11+ gear through all areas (everything from Vedauwoo offwidth to Tuolomne slab to Gunks roofs to Creek finger cracks to North Carolina quartzite. This might be an interesting side topic. How many different areas have you onsighted at a certain grade? I'll go first, since this is primarily an ego driven thread anyways  . I have onsigted 5.10 at the Gunks, North Conway, Yosemite, Red Rocks, Squamish and a bunch of smaller crags. I have also been shut down big time by certain 5.10s, as well, though! Out of all the 5.10s I have onsighted, NONE have been cracks larger than fingers, with NO attempts on 5.10 offwidth. Interpret that how you may. Josh ok, since everyone knows I'm an egotistical spraylord, as well! I actually make it a point to try to onsight at least solid 11 trad at every area I go to: Squamish, Red Rocks, Jtree, Indian Creek, New River Gorge, Gunks, Paradise Forks, Enchanted Rock, TX, Tennessee Wall, City of Rocks, Smith Rock, Red River Gorge. However, like you, BEC, this is done primarily by selectively picking climbs that are my style. There are plenty of 10a's at all these areas that I stay the hell away from.
Amusing that you had to put the TX in after E-Rock... being that it's off the radar to most. 
I also agree, not that I can be classed in with the Klamheads, JTs and Angrys of the world, that a good repertoire of crags ticked at a certain level is a good foundation to really know where you stand in the spray world.
I'm really only in the 10's but have climbed on such a variation of 10s that I've been torn between hiking them and puking on them, but usually never at the same crag. I haven't ticked many N-American crags, so I'm not too useful for this discussion, but have found Squish, Skaha and Smith to be all easier than the New... E-Rock has some burly 10s too.
*sigh*...I really need to road trip some more!
Actually, I have been to a crag with a diverse set of 10's.... Arapiles in Aus. Anywhere from singing to puking between climbs, mainly due to the polished nature of some rock and the steepness (but that's mainly my lack of endurance).
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Oct 29, 2009, 6:50 PM
Post #53 of 96
(1850 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
camhead wrote: ok, since everyone knows I'm an egotistical spraylord, as well! I actually make it a point to try to onsight at least solid 11 trad at every area I go to: Squamish, Red Rocks, Jtree, Indian Creek, New River Gorge, Gunks, Paradise Forks, Enchanted Rock, TX, Tennessee Wall, City of Rocks, Smith Rock, Red River Gorge. However, like you, BEC, this is done primarily by selectively picking climbs that are my style. There are plenty of 10a's at all these areas that I stay the hell away from.
You may be a spiritual criminal, but that statement makes me feel better. You are exagerating, surely, though. I can't see you backing away from ANY 5.10a anywhere. (but if there really are 5.10s that scare you, I need a list of those, so I don't, under any circumstances, get anywhere near them.)
This isn't trad-specific though. the same can be said about sport routes. Or bouldering.
We've had these discussions before: if you go to a new area you've never climbed at, with no chance of someone else bailing you on a climb, no knowledge of any background info, what grade are you going to start with? I think that is the most honest answer to 'what grade do you climb?' question.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 29, 2009, 6:57 PM
Post #54 of 96
(1844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
curt wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: What route is that? Doesn't look familiar. Jekyll and Hyde at Skytop. Full value 5.9 for sure. Curt
AHHH! That's why it doesn't look familiar! Skytop was closed by the time I started climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Oct 29, 2009, 7:09 PM
Post #55 of 96
(1835 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
johnwesely wrote: jaablink wrote: When I got here I thought the grades were stiff compared to the Gunks too. After a month or so I can pull the same grades as the I was in the Gunks no problem. You just have to take the time to adapt. Depending on the rock and the style you will adapt faster or slower… except for the Muir in RRG where 9 Gunks climber should be on sighting 12 with ease. 5.9s at the gunks look like this? 
Well, you have to admit that Iniquity does look very Gunks-like in this roofy section. Yeah, a very "new-school" 5.9, definitely. Man, that climb intimidates me.
|
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Oct 29, 2009, 7:32 PM
Post #56 of 96
(1823 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
Not (!) intimidating - Fun and exciting, with challenging moves….Steep rock usually means a clean fall…
|
|
|
|
|
dan4geng
Oct 29, 2009, 7:53 PM
Post #57 of 96
(1814 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2006
Posts: 64
|
Someone already brought this up but it should be reiterated...
People way too often make the mistake of thinking a climb/climbing area is Sandbagged simply because they are not proficient at the style of that particular climb/climbing area.
Example: I am not a proficient offwidth climber. A friend of mine is. I can usually onsight her projects. However she can float up an offwidth (wearing shorts). While on the same offwidth I will BARELY FLAIL my way up while loosing mucho skin. Is the offwidth sandbagged? No. I'm just not proficient at that style of climbing
(This post was edited by dan4geng on Oct 29, 2009, 7:57 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Oct 29, 2009, 8:07 PM
Post #58 of 96
(1800 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
jaablink wrote: Not (!) intimidating - Fun and exciting, with challenging moves….Steep rock usually means a clean fall…
Sure. But I'll come back to it later. My telescopic arms need a bit more time to grow into the proper extension length.
Don't want to make the thread drift toward discussion of grading curves based on height...
|
|
|
|
|
dan4geng
Oct 29, 2009, 8:26 PM
Post #59 of 96
(1786 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2006
Posts: 64
|
lena_chita wrote: jaablink wrote: Not (!) intimidating - Fun and exciting, with challenging moves….Steep rock usually means a clean fall… Sure. But I'll come back to it later. My telescopic arms need a bit more time to grow into the proper extension length. Don't want to make the thread drift toward discussion of grading curves based on height...
at 5'3'' I can sympathize. The lack of footholds and intermidates make those routes at midnight surf balls hard for us Shorties
|
|
|
|
|
jaablink
Oct 29, 2009, 8:31 PM
Post #60 of 96
(1784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 537
|
GO GO Gadget Legs… Hugh Herr could go from 5 feet to 8 feet tall…try following footsteps that can be adjusted . I know some of his routes and the graded do very…
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Oct 29, 2009, 9:17 PM
Post #61 of 96
(1768 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
dan4geng wrote: lena_chita wrote: jaablink wrote: Not (!) intimidating - Fun and exciting, with challenging moves….Steep rock usually means a clean fall… Sure. But I'll come back to it later. My telescopic arms need a bit more time to grow into the proper extension length. Don't want to make the thread drift toward discussion of grading curves based on height... at 5'3'' I can sympathize. The lack of footholds and intermidates make those routes at midnight surf balls hard for us Shorties
Doesn't seem to hold YOU back much. You didn't actually climb ALL of those routes 10/26 in one day, did you? That's a lot of crags to hit in one day. But yeah, Midnight Surf is not my favorite place.
|
|
|
|
|
lemon_boy
Oct 29, 2009, 9:24 PM
Post #62 of 96
(1763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 287
|
curt wrote: lemon_boy wrote: definitely agree with camhead. in my mind, a person who can onsight in the low to mid 12 range, 90% of the time, at any area, any style, is probably a world class climber. i REGULARLY see prolific climbers (ie pictures plastered all over magazines) get shut down on routes in the upper 5.11 to lower 5.12 range. this used to surprise me, but climbing hard is, well, hard. like camhead, one of my goals at every area i go to is to onsite at least 1 5.11 pitch. some places this is easy, some places hard for me. some styles are easy for me, some styles are hard for me. for me, it has taken a LOT of time and a LOT of effort to be able to do this. it has been worth it though, to me at least. It's a worthy goal to onsite a 5.11 pitch everywhere you go, but I think it's even harder to be a true "solid 5.10" climber. By that I mean being able to do any 5.10 at any climbing area. I probably used to be a solid 5.10 climber, but that was years ago--and today I have to pick my battles much more carefully. Curt
amen to that curt! i'm mos def not a 100% 5.10 climber. if you count in the moss covered unprotected 5.7 pitches, covered in verglass, storm rolling in, cold fingers, numb toes, i'm bailing like an 8 armed man in a swiss-cheese-memorial-boat!
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 29, 2009, 9:26 PM
Post #63 of 96
(1758 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
curt wrote: johnwesely wrote: jaablink wrote: When I got here I thought the grades were stiff compared to the Gunks too. After a month or so I can pull the same grades as the I was in the Gunks no problem. You just have to take the time to adapt. Depending on the rock and the style you will adapt faster or slower… except for the Muir in RRG where 9 Gunks climber should be on sighting 12 with ease. 5.9s at the gunks look like this? [image]http://www.redriverclimbing.com/RRCGuide/img/466415cac9d60[/image] No. More like this: [image]http://www.mohonkmountainguides.com/images/Jekylland%20Hyde_lr.jpg[/image] Curt
That looks way easier.
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Oct 29, 2009, 9:28 PM
Post #64 of 96
(1754 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
johnwesely wrote: jaablink wrote: When I got here I thought the grades were stiff compared to the Gunks too. After a month or so I can pull the same grades as the I was in the Gunks no problem. You just have to take the time to adapt. Depending on the rock and the style you will adapt faster or slower… except for the Muir in RRG where 9 Gunks climber should be on sighting 12 with ease. 5.9s at the gunks look like this? [image]http://www.redriverclimbing.com/RRCGuide/img/466415cac9d60[/image]
Gunks wouldn't have the sissy bolt over your head.
|
|
|
|
|
dan4geng
Oct 29, 2009, 9:29 PM
Post #65 of 96
(1750 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2006
Posts: 64
|
lena_chita wrote: dan4geng wrote: lena_chita wrote: jaablink wrote: Not (!) intimidating - Fun and exciting, with challenging moves….Steep rock usually means a clean fall… Sure. But I'll come back to it later. My telescopic arms need a bit more time to grow into the proper extension length. Don't want to make the thread drift toward discussion of grading curves based on height... at 5'3'' I can sympathize. The lack of footholds and intermidates make those routes at midnight surf balls hard for us Shorties Doesn't seem to hold YOU back much. You didn't actually climb ALL of those routes 10/26 in one day, did you? That's a lot of crags to hit in one day. But yeah, Midnight Surf is not my favorite place.
No. That was a two week trip condensed into one day bored at work
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 29, 2009, 9:30 PM
Post #66 of 96
(1749 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
olderic wrote: johnwesely wrote: jaablink wrote: When I got here I thought the grades were stiff compared to the Gunks too. After a month or so I can pull the same grades as the I was in the Gunks no problem. You just have to take the time to adapt. Depending on the rock and the style you will adapt faster or slower… except for the Muir in RRG where 9 Gunks climber should be on sighting 12 with ease. 5.9s at the gunks look like this? [image]http://www.redriverclimbing.com/RRCGuide/img/466415cac9d60[/image] Gunks wouldn't have the sissy bolt over your head.
The sissy bolt has nothing at all to do with my point.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 29, 2009, 9:37 PM
Post #67 of 96
(1747 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
johnwesely wrote: curt wrote: johnwesely wrote: jaablink wrote: When I got here I thought the grades were stiff compared to the Gunks too. After a month or so I can pull the same grades as the I was in the Gunks no problem. You just have to take the time to adapt. Depending on the rock and the style you will adapt faster or slower… except for the Muir in RRG where 9 Gunks climber should be on sighting 12 with ease. 5.9s at the gunks look like this? No. More like this:  Curt That looks way easier.
Hahahaha. When you've actually done it, please report back.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Oct 29, 2009, 9:43 PM
Post #68 of 96
(1741 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
johnwesely wrote: olderic wrote: johnwesely wrote: jaablink wrote: When I got here I thought the grades were stiff compared to the Gunks too. After a month or so I can pull the same grades as the I was in the Gunks no problem. You just have to take the time to adapt. Depending on the rock and the style you will adapt faster or slower… except for the Muir in RRG where 9 Gunks climber should be on sighting 12 with ease. 5.9s at the gunks look like this? [image]http://www.redriverclimbing.com/RRCGuide/img/466415cac9d60[/image] Gunks wouldn't have the sissy bolt over your head. The sissy bolt has nothing at all to do with my point.
The question you asked was - "5.9s at the Gunks look like this".
I implied "no" and explained it was because of the bolt.
But prehaps you care to enlighten us feeble minded folks as to exactly what your point was?
To save some bandwith - if your point is that that image nakes that climb look much more difficult then a Gunks 5.9 - well then you are just plain wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Oct 29, 2009, 9:53 PM
Post #69 of 96
(1726 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
curt wrote: johnwesely wrote: curt wrote: johnwesely wrote: jaablink wrote: When I got here I thought the grades were stiff compared to the Gunks too. After a month or so I can pull the same grades as the I was in the Gunks no problem. You just have to take the time to adapt. Depending on the rock and the style you will adapt faster or slower… except for the Muir in RRG where 9 Gunks climber should be on sighting 12 with ease. 5.9s at the gunks look like this? [image]http://www.redriverclimbing.com/RRCGuide/img/466415cac9d60[/image] No. More like this: Curt That looks way easier. Hahahaha. When you've actually done it, please report back. Curt
Are you suggesting he should break into a closed area?
OT, but I have learned to bite my tongue before saying "well, this looks easy"-- no matter how easy it actually looks.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Oct 29, 2009, 9:55 PM
Post #70 of 96
(1725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
dan4geng wrote: Someone already brought this up but it should be reiterated... People way too often make the mistake of thinking a climb/climbing area is Sandbagged simply because they are not proficient at the style of that particular climb/climbing area. Example: I am not a proficient offwidth climber. A friend of mine is. I can usually onsight her projects. However she can float up an offwidth (wearing shorts). While on the same offwidth I will BARELY FLAIL my way up while loosing mucho skin. Is the offwidth sandbagged? No. I'm just not proficient at that style of climbing
But, this entirely misses MY point of inflating my ego. If we start to get all serious and logical, now that is what I call thread drift. If it's hard for me....it's sandbagged. PERIOD. 
(This post was edited by blueeyedclimber on Oct 29, 2009, 10:17 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 29, 2009, 9:56 PM
Post #71 of 96
(1724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
olderic wrote: johnwesely wrote: olderic wrote: johnwesely wrote: jaablink wrote: When I got here I thought the grades were stiff compared to the Gunks too. After a month or so I can pull the same grades as the I was in the Gunks no problem. You just have to take the time to adapt. Depending on the rock and the style you will adapt faster or slower… except for the Muir in RRG where 9 Gunks climber should be on sighting 12 with ease. 5.9s at the gunks look like this? [image]http://www.redriverclimbing.com/RRCGuide/img/466415cac9d60[/image] Gunks wouldn't have the sissy bolt over your head. The sissy bolt has nothing at all to do with my point. The question you asked was - "5.9s at the Gunks look like this". I implied "no" and explained it was because of the bolt. But prehaps you care to enlighten us feeble minded folks as to exactly what your point was? To save some bandwith - if your point is that that image nakes that climb look much more difficult then a Gunks 5.9 - well then you are just plain wrong.
My point is that no matter how stiff the grades are at the Gunks and no matter how soft the grades are at the Red, a 5.9 Gunks climber is not going to be "onsighting all day" routes that are 8 grades harder.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 29, 2009, 9:57 PM
Post #72 of 96
(1723 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
curt wrote: johnwesely wrote: curt wrote: johnwesely wrote: jaablink wrote: When I got here I thought the grades were stiff compared to the Gunks too. After a month or so I can pull the same grades as the I was in the Gunks no problem. You just have to take the time to adapt. Depending on the rock and the style you will adapt faster or slower… except for the Muir in RRG where 9 Gunks climber should be on sighting 12 with ease. 5.9s at the gunks look like this? [image]http://www.redriverclimbing.com/RRCGuide/img/466415cac9d60[/image] No. More like this: [image]http://www.mohonkmountainguides.com/images/Jekylland%20Hyde_lr.jpg[/image] Curt That looks way easier. Hahahaha. When you've actually done it, please report back. Curt
I would love to do. Give me the name first. If I ever get that far north, it will be on my ticklist. It looks like a really fun climb.
|
|
|
|
|
justroberto
Oct 29, 2009, 10:15 PM
Post #73 of 96
(1708 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876
|
kachoong wrote: E-Rock has some burly 10s too.
When are you coming out again?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 29, 2009, 10:29 PM
Post #74 of 96
(1694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
johnwesely wrote: curt wrote: johnwesely wrote: curt wrote: johnwesely wrote: jaablink wrote: When I got here I thought the grades were stiff compared to the Gunks too. After a month or so I can pull the same grades as the I was in the Gunks no problem. You just have to take the time to adapt. Depending on the rock and the style you will adapt faster or slower… except for the Muir in RRG where 9 Gunks climber should be on sighting 12 with ease. 5.9s at the gunks look like this? [image]http://www.redriverclimbing.com/RRCGuide/img/466415cac9d60[/image] No. More like this: [image]http://www.mohonkmountainguides.com/images/Jekylland%20Hyde_lr.jpg[/image] Curt That looks way easier. Hahahaha. When you've actually done it, please report back. Curt I would love to do. Give me the name first. If I ever get that far north, it will be on my ticklist. It looks like a really fun climb.
I already posted the name of the route. It is a really fun route, but I can assure you, it's pretty stiff for 5.9
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 29, 2009, 10:34 PM
Post #75 of 96
(1685 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
curt wrote: johnwesely wrote: curt wrote: johnwesely wrote: curt wrote: johnwesely wrote: jaablink wrote: When I got here I thought the grades were stiff compared to the Gunks too. After a month or so I can pull the same grades as the I was in the Gunks no problem. You just have to take the time to adapt. Depending on the rock and the style you will adapt faster or slower… except for the Muir in RRG where 9 Gunks climber should be on sighting 12 with ease. 5.9s at the gunks look like this? [image]http://www.redriverclimbing.com/RRCGuide/img/466415cac9d60[/image] No. More like this: [image]http://www.mohonkmountainguides.com/images/Jekylland%20Hyde_lr.jpg[/image] Curt That looks way easier. Hahahaha. When you've actually done it, please report back. Curt I would love to do. Give me the name first. If I ever get that far north, it will be on my ticklist. It looks like a really fun climb. I already posted the name of the route. It is a really fun route, but I can assure you, it's pretty stiff for 5.9 Curt
I saw the name in the image tag, so I beat you to telling me you beat me to it. I never said it wasn't stiff. I think our preconceived notions of the routes in the pictures we posted have a lot to do with how hard we think the picture makes it look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
