Someone posted earlier that slab climbing requires relatively little technique--and, I can tell immediately from that statement that the person who posted this comment can not climb hard slab routes.

Hard, thin routes are extremely technical.

That is why Hall of Mirrors sees remarkably few repeat ascents.

Sure power is good for the climbing along the roof of a cave crowd, but I know some of those guys pretty well, and one in particular will tell you flat out, it's the feet.

There's technique to working on overhangs, try climbing one if you can't keep your feet on.

There are guys who are really strong who can't climb 15 feet of overhang on jugs, because they can't figure out how to keep their feet on and then use em.

But it is definately true that if you don't have power as well, you will not be climbing along the roof of a cave any time soon.

All hard routes are extremely technical. A comparison of which, grade-for-grade, are more technical, is what I'm talking about.

Strength VS. technique? Why can't we all just get along! I personally wouldn't mind a lot more of both. At the same time, I wish I could jetison this spare tire that always comes along for the ride.

S

5.15b

I'm going to disagree with your contention that slabs are less technical than overhanging routes, grade for grade, on strictly theoretical grounds.

Assume a particular slab and a particular steep route are each accurately rated (whatever that means) at, say, 5.12b. Since they are equally difficult, and the steep route requires the greater strength, then the slab must be the more technical. If if weren't, it could not also be 5.12b.

I suspect that your experience with slabs seeming to be easier, grade for grade, is due to biased grading, per rgold's post.

it's the ahrdest climb that's ever been claimed to have been done, no? he actually beat me to that response...

Sweet. Now my hijack is getting somewhere. :D


You're assuming that YDS difficulty is composed of simply strength+technique, with no other factors.

Or another possible tack: perhaps "more technique" is in fact required, but it should be undisputable that the breadth of techniques is much more limited

...not to mention the requirement on overhangs that you do everything efficiently and without excessive hesitation---on slabs, efficiency is a non-concern, and you can climb as slow as you want.

However, for me, the less complicated techniques required also makes them seem less interesting/challenging).

Slab technique is more subtle than overhang technique, and there is less margin for error.

As far as I am aware, those are the only factors. The mental thing isn't supposed to enter into it -- 5.12G and 5.12X should be equally difficult physically.

.

I guess I would agree with that.


I disagree with that; and, if anything, would say that you've got it backwards. A fit climber can find rests on overhanging routes. On hard slabs you must keep moving: footholds are tenuous and you often have to move continuously from smear to smear to prevent falling.

Slab technique is more subtle than overhang technique, and there is less margin for error. On a 5.12 overhang, the holds are relatively large, so you can hit them imperfectly with a hand or foot and be able to adjust your hold to keep you on. On slabs the footwork and balance must be far more precise. Some of the best sport climbers here in SoCal got their start on the slabs at J Tree. You've got to see their footwork to believe it (don't quote me, but it transfers to sport climbing).

-Jay

One other thing, some slab is nearly vertical, some is not. Reading what different people have to say about slabs, it sounds like they are talking about different kinds of slabs altogether.

This brings up the important point of what exactly a "slab" is. There seem to be two main senses of the word: requires smearing and has only very small holds, or is low angle. Or maybe it requires both? People have described Bain de Sang (14d) as a slab, even though it's supposed to be slightly overhanging. OTOH, I've had people tell me that very low angle routes aren't slabs because they either have a crack or other major feature, are climbed mostly by edging, or have lots of good hand holds.

What does "slab" mean to you?

(heh. Has this thread been hijacked enough yet? Maybe someone should start a new thread....)

why is it that only the first couple of posts are good in a forum?

To me, the difference between the 5.8 and 5.11 slabs really seems to be just how hard the footholds seem to be. They all were equally "easy" to stand on---all I did was put my foot on the hold and then put my weight on my foot. Maybe this is a bit nebuluous.