I am a X.n climber

I am getting tired of people telling me they climb hard because they have gotten up something tuff once. (for example 5.11c and when we go climbing they struggle on 5.10a)

I propose a new system. If you want to say you are a 5.11c trad climber (or any level/type) you must meet these requirments.

1. You have to have climbed without falling 5 different climbs at the level and discipline.
2. Three of these climbs have to be located on different cliffs.
3. 2 of these climbs must be located in different areas.

For example I am a 5.11 sport climber because I have climbed 5 sport routes 5.11 or harder. Two of them done at shelf road on the Cactus Cliff, one on the Bank. One climb in CCC and another at Sherwood Forest in Boulder Canyon.

At least two different areas, three different cliffs and 5 routes.

Jon

(The Gym does not count.)

I always thought that I couldn't call myself a 5.N climber until I could climb that grade for every genre -- slab, sport, crack, off-width, etc.

I figure you tell people that you are a climber of the level, that if witnesses were to be present, they would testify that you indeed climb that level... and that if you were to tie in for a climb of that level in front of whomever you just told your level too, that you would not feel embarassed by your performance or feel the need to make excuses...

Someone once told me and my pals what level they were climbing, but having seen them climb (or not) I knew a little better. So I figured in his case you had to subtract a letter grade for bad memory, a letter grade for exaggeration, 2 letter grades because he was talking about a 'modern' sport route, and a full number on the account of him being such a liar...

No less, I think just considering oneself accountable for their claims would do the trick in terms of honesty. I've always said I am a 5.11 climber. People who climb with me know what that means. It means I'll try the lead as long as it's not a dangerous route, and more than likely succeed.

It's silly to claim yourself by your best redpoint ever- 'cause sooner or later, everyone finds out the truth... And the claimor is the one who lives with the impression either way.

I'm getting "tired" of climbers imposing "new rules" on other climbers.

I'm getting "tired" of climbers imposing "new rules" on other climbers.

I agree with Arndt. i think that is a retarded system. first of all cheif, you shouldnt really care what peoples limits are. if they get to the top, they get to the top. if they dont, they dont. why should you care either way?

Why do you need a bunch of conditions that take a flow chart to figure out? If you're going to label yourself like that, be able to onsight that rating 90% of the time.

I think that may be to subjective. For example a 5.8 slab is different than a 5.8 vertical. Or even a 5.8 here in Colorado may be different from say a 5.8 at the Gunks.

So maybe it should be more specific to the area you are climbing at.

I am a 5.8 northeast slab climber if you are climbing at Whitehorse. Or I'm a 5.8 trad leader at the Gunks. Good start though! These days I don't even care. I'll climb anything i can get out on if I can ever find the time to go again. Right now I'd be lucky and happy to climb a 5.anything!!

Purcell,

I never did care and if we are top roping or sport climbing I don't care. However I don't appreciate sitting on top of the first or worse second pitch when the second isn't able to make the hard moves and I have to lower them and bail off the climb. It puts me in a situation that I don't enjoy, I possibly have to leave gear behind to do it and it puts a damper on the day.

You would think this isn't an occurrence that happens often, but perhaps it only happens to people I climb with.

I am not insisting on new rules, however many climbers that i have recently meet and climbed with in this sport seem either so full of ego or talk a lot of talk, but cant back it up when on the wall. I am simply asking that people be a little tuffer on themselves which I believe will filter to others when we all get out and climb together.

I agree with Will, 90% works, but I only add the conditions to help eliminate the bias that can be involved when you climb in one area often. Many posts on this site are about 'soft' grades in areas and things of that nature.

I think you need to change the title of this thread. It makes it unfair for those of us who might only succeed on 4th class terrain 50% of the time or more. Kindly change it to "I am a X.n climber".

Title updated to X.n

5.7 and lovin it!

We can all start having tests like in Martial Arts every time we get to the next level. We might want to come up with something different to signify our X.n status other than colored belts. They might get sucked into our belay devices if we are belaying, or repelling down from a route. Any suggestions? What about having a Notarized form by an unbiased 3rd Party Notary signifying our new X.n status once we've passed the test? Then the next time someone posts a Partner Request we can just forward a PDF of our credentials.

I'm a 5.(n+1) climber.

There are two reasons this discussion should matter whatsoever:

1. you don't want to belay your partner because they take too long flailing up relatively hard routes.
2. Your safety is somehow compromised by their not climbing to expected ability (and really how often is this happening? maybe certain big wall situations)

Otherwise, who cares. I always felt the nature of this sport is to enjoy yourself and have fun. Why must we always label everything?

I usually try not to elude to most climbers that I myself climb. That way, I don't end up hearing all the "cool" stories and the "epic" climbs that these "wall veterans" get up.

I once herd at the Tramway a bunch of locals bashing J-Tree. When I asked why, they said it was because everything was sandbagged and they couldn't climb a V8.

Climber
"Who want's to try that hard on a V 3 anyway!?!"
Me
"Oh . . ." Turning away a little bewildered.

For the threads sake; I say if you have a rating posted, you'd better be able to red-point it. I suppose the big difference is in the label. I'm a 5.soandso climber would imply to me that you have, at some point, climbed that hard. If you say I'm a 5.soandso leader, I would take it that's what you can safely lead from the ground up without falling. But whatever, it's about having fun right?

Rules suck. People should try to give an honest assessment of what they climb and their partner should give them a break if they happen to fall below that self-proclaimed level a couple times. If they consistently fall below that level, than just take that into account when you climb. Speaking for myself, I know my climbing can be highly variable. I've led hard ten gear climbs in areas not known for soft grading yet have backed off 5.8 as well. Sometimes you have 'high-gravity days' as my friend likes to say; simply part of the game. I consider myself a WI5 leader since I've led the grade a couple dozen times yet up at Rifle during my last trip I got flashed pumped on a WI4 and had to lower off; that was a high gravity day.

I think this is all sort of like arguing over how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin! As for me, I'd rather be a has-been than a never-was!

Cheers! Stu

I like to go by the "On-sight 50% of the time" level when telling people how hard I climb.

Wow, nothing like a sharp stick in the pride to get people going a thread.

Having been part of the conversation that led Jon to post, I think it is important to understand why he posted in the first place. I firmly believe that the intention of this post was more about the safety of both parties while climbing. Not about judging or imposing rules. When finding a new climbing partner, it is important to understand each others capabilities and limitations, in order to not put some one in a position that they may be injured or endangering the other party on the climb.

It is disappointing to me that people can't be honest with themselves and their limitations - regardless if it is a "high gravity day." Communication is vital to ensure success in climbing - and if you aren't honest with yourself then it may endanger your partner.

Just my .02

Said wrote:I'm a 5.(n+1) climber. There are two reasons this discussion should matter whatsoever: 1. you don't want to belay your partner because they take too long flailing up relatively hard routes. 2. Your safety is somehow compromised by their not climbing to expected ability (and really how often is this happening? maybe certain big wall situations) Otherwise, who cares. I always felt the nature of this sport is to enjoy yourself and have fun. Why must we always label everything?

This thread is sad and funny at the same time.

I have had excellent luck with partners off of mountainproject, but talking with other people I know that is not always the case.

Generally, I think the routes people tick, or add to the database, give a pretty good indication what to expect. Shiny new gear vs. a mismatched set of nuts. 5.10 spires vs. old school Boreal aces. There are usually some clues. Even if the approach is only to the base of the Bastille I think you have a good idea what to expect from just a short conversation about routes you now well.

That being said starting I seldom get more than a pitch off the deck with someone I have never climbed with, and may tend to rap off (v/ lower) as well.

P.S. If someone tells you they are an alpine climber, be concerned. If they tell you they are an alpine climber, have ascenders, and put on their helmet on in the parking lot, be very concerned.