How hard do people really climb?

I have onsighted 10s out west but the Gunks, I have to try harder on 5.8, let alone 10s! I have worked a couple of short 12s into submission, but I am lightyears from being a 12 climber. Its nice to be able to get a few harder climbs wired just to know that you CAN do moves of a certain level if you are willing...good days and bad days happen to everyone. What I can climb on my worst day is the type of climber I am ... and thats all I care to say about that :)

Lots of funny opinions about what people can climb. Really funny to see mp'ers say that they can follow 12a sport and lead 5.8 trad. This is a really good indicator of "true" ability. Lead climbing is one of the most psycho-physical activities that I know of. Following or TR'ing only says what a person can hang on to, fall off, and hang on some more.

For me, what any person can really climb is what they can lead onsight (redundant, I know), or lead redpoint (redundant, I know), second or third try.

Anything beyond that is just projecting and the sky is the limit.

Sam Stephens wrote: NC grades.. Oh boy. That's a hell of a game there. I've got my small share of 5.11 gear routes but I don't claim to climb 5.11 on gear in NC. West VA, yea I'm happy there. Oh, and you must not have done the old aid line straight up the last pitch of the Yellow Spur. Not soft.

We did the line with all the bolts up the right hand arete. The wind was blowing about 40 mph so it is hard to say what grade it felt like. I literally got blown off the wall once, and maybe even UP a the wall few times. It felt hard, but not 5.11 like someone told me. And the hand traverse under the roof is rated 5.9 if I recall correctly. 5.9... yea right.

Anyways, it was the only route we climbed so I can't really say much about the grades in Eldo. I've heard they are stiff...

But yea, I like the grades in NC. No gimmies, but fair and mostly accurate. A few sandbags mixed in but you could say that about plenty of climbing areas. And the R really means something in NC. Not like some places where you climb 15 feet on steep terrain above a bomber #2 or even a bolt. An R in NC means you really should not fall.

I love how projecting routes suddenly disqualifies them and makes them 'easy' or 'the sky is the limit'. Reminds me of how easy it is to climb everest cause a blind guy or a little kid climbed it. Apparently the logic is when you work harder and longer on something it's somehow easier.

I've got a question about these sandbagging comments. I haven't climbed a lot of places. I've been in Utah for school and have done most of my climbing here, so I can't say what grades feel like elsewhere. But I don't understand how every area in the country except for the few that I always see listed (NC, Yosemite, Eldo, etc.) can be sandbagged. Grades are nothing more than a way to compare the difficulty of climbs to other climbs. Saying that 6 climbing areas have correct grades while the 10,000 other areas in the US don't seems a little like claiming that the rest of the world is crazy but you're sane. If climbers in 10,000 areas agree on ratings but those in a handful of areas don't, it seems more accurate to say that those areas have stiff ratings and the rest of the country is right. This is solely a semantic argument, not an assertion that I understand ratings better than anyone else.

Ryan Williams wrote: We did the line with all the bolts up the right hand arete. The wind was blowing about 40 mph so it is hard to say what grade it felt like. I literally got blown off the wall once, and maybe even UP a the wall few times. It felt hard, but not 5.11 like someone told me. And the hand traverse under the roof is rated 5.9 if I recall correctly. 5.9... yea right.

The line of bolts is .10a. The hand traverse is .7, with a .8 dihedral move at the end. The moves off the ground are given .9 I think. Sounds like you got some bad beta?

Natas wrote:Ryan....really. Someone told you the 5.10- bolts were 5.11 and the 5.7 roof was 5.9. You should know that you were told the wrong thing (check the book dude) and then you go and call the route soft based upon what your friend incorrectly told you. You are funny.....and dangerous. Good luck!

Well I knew that the route was a 5.9 with a harder, more direct line just below the summit arete. I also knew that we could climb left, and up, to avoid the harder direct line, but we decided to do the bolted line 'cuz it was windy as hell and we were getting blown off the rock. I though we might have to French free to keep going and the bolts were close together. Anyways...

I guess I just assumed that the traverse was the 5.9 pitch 'cuz they all seemed about the same to me (5.8). And in the parking lot before the route I asked some guy how to find the base of the route and he told me about every pitch. He said "there's a 5.11 variation that is bolted..."

Sorry, but I don't have a guidebook for Eldo. I found enough info about how to find the route and knew that it was a 5.9. I got good beta for the descent. I didn't think it would be "dangerous" to go and climb it w/o a nice shiny guidebook. I'll keep that in mind for next time though. And I'll stop calling the route soft. For some reason that seems to make people think that I didn't have an awesome time, which I did!

Jeremy Kasmann wrote:The line of bolts is .10a. The hand traverse is .7, with a .8 dihedral move at the end. The moves off the ground are given .9 I think. Sounds like you got some bad beta?

Thanks Jeremy. I guess I got beta from the parking lot dude and had a lack of beta since we were just driving through. Usually for me the most important bits of info are how to find the climb and how to get down. Where to camp for free, permits, etc... that stuff is all nice to know before hand too, but the climbing usually takes care of itself.

Didn't mean to start a big thing. I had fun in Eldo and will be back in a few months.

Austin Baird wrote:I don't understand how every area in the country except for the few that I always see listed (NC, Yosemite, Eldo, etc.) can be sandbagged....If climbers in 10,000 areas agree on ratings but those in a handful of areas don't, it seems more accurate to say that those areas have stiff ratings and the rest of the country is right.

Well, see it's not that simple. Age of the climbing area and certain "benchmark" climbs are part of the equation. The YDS started at Tahquitz/Suicide rocks in California and migrated northward to Yosemite (hence the "y" in yds). Older areas are where the first 5.8-5.11s were established and the bechmarks were set. Some isolated areas also got stiff ratings because of unique climbing styles or not wanting to seem light or not knowing any better. Then newer areas were developed and often given ego-fluffing ratings. Saying a place like Jack's is accurate because people agree with the ratings is like saying ice cream is good for you because people like it.

Austin Baird wrote:I've got a question about these sandbagging comments. I haven't climbed a lot of places. I've been in Utah for school and have done most of my climbing here, so I can't say what grades feel like elsewhere. But I don't understand how every area in the country except for the few that I always see listed (NC, Yosemite, Eldo, etc.) can be sandbagged. Grades are nothing more than a way to compare the difficulty of climbs to other climbs. Saying that 6 climbing areas have correct grades while the 10,000 other areas in the US don't seems a little like claiming that the rest of the world is crazy but you're sane. If climbers in 10,000 areas agree on ratings but those in a handful of areas don't, it seems more accurate to say that those areas have stiff ratings and the rest of the country is right. This is solely a semantic argument, not an assertion that I understand ratings better than anyone else.

Austin if I'm reading this right you are confused about what "sandbagging" means.

A sandbag is a route that is HARDER than it is graded. Like Esthesia in the Dacks. I think it was originally graded 5.8 or 5.9. Either of those would be sandbags since the route is a solid 5.10. It has since been upgraded.

Some routes in the Valley could be sandbags but since the grading system we use was developed in Yosemite, it would be kind of silly to call the whole Valley "sandbagged."

A lot of people say that there are sandbags in places like NC, Eldo, many other areas but in reality these areas have legit grades and many other, newer areas have softer grades. It's not as if the developers said "hey, let's make this area soft." Things have just changed over time... some people call it grade inflation.

But of those 10,000 other climbing areas in the US, I'm willing to bet that a lot of the grades ARE softer than the main climbing areas in the US where the YDS system was created and consolidated. Nothing wrong with that... but it's true.

If you don't believe me, come to NC, WV, NY, etc. I'm sure many people could say the same thing about their areas out west but I haven't climbed enough out there to say.

in the words of ol henry ford: whether you think you CAN or you think you CAN'T, you're right! what kind of a-hole has the right to say someone can't do something? and what kind of chump believes them?!

LOL...

super bored at work to be on these forums,

jon

Sandbag: any route u thought u shoulda been able to do but couldn't.
Grade inflation: a theory postulated by old trad climbers to explain why 9 year old girls climb way harder than they do.

The answer to the original query is a paradox.

On one hand, people are climbing harder than u think and traditional testpieces go down all the time without any fanfare. The guy struggling on some 5.10 slab in a place like Yosemite always wants to think the guys climbing harder have cheated by clipping bolts or fluff grades. Bullshit. They are just climbing way harder for a myriad of reasons so he should get over it. American climbers lived this lie for years to explain why the euros were dominating right up until two austrian dudes named Huber rocked up to Yos and learned to crack climb in about two hours and then blew the doors off the place.

Yet, the climber who can consistently onsight 5.12 no matter the rock, on crack, face, steep, slab, in poor conditions or good, high off the ground, or at the crag, AND deal with runouts is a rare bird indeed. (I didn't play the OW card because at the higher grades, O-dubs are very specialized and usually involve tricks). And even these extraordinary talents rise to it only slightly more often then not. 10%? I'd say more like 10 or so guys in any given era. Most really good trad climbers I know (and I know a lot) can still count their hard 5.12 trad onsights (excluding Indian Creek AKA sport climbing) in the single digits.

However, everyone on this thread slagging off the sportos should take heed. Sport climbing is only about 20 years old. I predict that the gym rats of the last decade are going to revolutionize free climbing in the big mountains. In ten years, 5.14 will be commonplace in places like Patagonia and beyond. There will be high altitude 5.13. Finally, very hard routes in the 5.13-14 range will be established alpine style in places like the Kitchatnas. Then whether or not the grades in jtree are harder than Rifle will be completely moot (they're not, by the way).

Wrote this on my blackberry. Sorry about the typos.

I can climb WI5+ and M6 pretty well sometimes M7, but cant climb rock past 5.10...

Simply put, my fingers are big, clumsy and weak... I can't climb for crap if crimps are involved, just can't... My fingers I have found are way to big... For reference I can't even get OR size XL gloves on past my thumb...

Does that mean I am not a climber?

Ryan Williams wrote: +1. I have on-sighted mid 11 trad and harder sport but still have a hard time calling myself a 5.10 climber because if it's a crack that's wider than fists it could take me all day to lead a pitch no matter what the grade. The first pitch of the N. Face of Castleton AND the first pitch of Fine Jade beat me to hell. Both 5.10. And as far as comparing climbing 5.12 to golf and skiing? Come on. I've done a lot of both. Yes I did play golf growing up... we had no mountains. Being a scratch golfer is so much harder than being a 5.12 climber that I can't even explain it. The percentage of golfers who consistently shoot in the low 70's is MUCH lower than the percentage of climbers who can on-sight 5.12-. And skiing in bounds is easier than all of the above. I could float "double blacks" in Colorado when I was 10... and I grew up at the beach! The hardest part is not getting slammed into by an out of control cowboy from Texas, dressed in blue jeans and a leather jacket. Now being in the back country greatly affects the skiing... and the climbing for that matter. And I guess the same could be said about trying to play golf in Scotland. But for anyone who has played any golf... isn't it one of the hardest things you've ever tried to be good at?

Golf is piss hard.

can onsite easy .12's. Most of the time I have to project hard 12's and 13's

Actually, determining how hard of a climber you are has nothing to do with what you've onsighted or flashed or redpointed.

Take the easiest climb that you have fallen off of in the last six months. Subtract a number grade from it. That's what kind of climber you are.

chris Kalous wrote:Sandbag: any route u thought u shoulda been able to do but couldn't. Grade inflation: a theory postulated by old trad climbers to explain why 9 year old girls climb way harder than they do. The answer to the original query is a paradox. On one hand, people are climbing harder than u think and traditional testpieces go down all the time without any fanfare. The guy struggling on some 5.10 slab in a place like Yosemite always wants to think the guys climbing harder have cheated by clipping bolts or fluff grades. Bullshit. They are just climbing way harder for a myriad of reasons so he should get over it. American climbers lived this lie for years to explain why the euros were dominating right up until two austrian dudes named Huber rocked up to Yos and learned to crack climb in about two hours and then blew the doors off the place. Yet, the climber who can consistently onsight 5.12 no matter the rock, on crack, face, steep, slab, in poor conditions or good, high off the ground, or at the crag, AND deal with runouts is a rare bird indeed. (I didn't play the OW card because at the higher grades, O-dubs are very specialized and usually involve tricks). And even these extraordinary talents rise to it only slightly more often then not. 10%? I'd say more like 10 or so guys in any given era. Most really good trad climbers I know (and I know a lot) can still count their hard 5.12 trad onsights (excluding Indian Creek AKA sport climbing) in the single digits. However, everyone on this thread slagging off the sportos should take heed. Sport climbing is only about 20 years old. I predict that the gym rats of the last decade are going to revolutionize free climbing in the big mountains. In ten years, 5.14 will be commonplace in places like Patagonia and beyond. There will be high altitude 5.13. Finally, very hard routes in the 5.13-14 range will be established alpine style in places like the Kitchatnas. Then whether or not the grades in jtree are harder than Rifle will be completely moot (they're not, by the way). Wrote this on my blackberry. Sorry about the typos.

Well said Chris.

Wondering if you remember Adam and I from Indian Creek last year?

Anyways, I'll be out in CO and WY this summer... might try to take a trip to Utah again in the fall. Maybe we'll cross paths.

camhead wrote:Actually, determining how hard of a climber you are has nothing to do with what you've onsighted or flashed or redpointed. Take the easiest climb that you have fallen off of in the last six months. Subtract a number grade from it. That's what kind of climber you are.

I wish that this was the standard, as opposed to the "I sort of power-dogged 5.X, so I guess thats what I'll tell people"

dev (a 5.7 climber)

I don't think people are saying or implying that redpointing/headpointing/working routes are BAD, but that they don't reflect what you would say you climb.

The only reasons you're going to be telling someone "I climb XX" is because you're looking for a compatible partner, or you're a spraylord.

If you want a partner, it makes much more sense to talk about what you can onsight regularly and always get up within a few tries. That way you know what kind of routes you can go do together. Most people redpoint about a number harder than they onsight, but it varies wildly. Even for me at different times it has varied a lot, mostly depending on how much real climbing I'm doing. If I'm climbing 4 days a week on rock, my OS and RP levels start to converge a little and might only be 2-3 letters, whereas when I'm strong on plastic but not climbing outside much it could be 5-6 letters.

Ice4life wrote:I can't climb for crap if crimps are involved, just can't... My fingers I have found are way to big...Does that mean I am not a climber?

No, it means you should be out hiking the 1" 5.12 off-fingers cracks and laughing at the people who say purple camalots are a "hard size". Ditto the 4" ers, you'll be fist jamming the 5.11 OWs and making the avg people cry in frustration.

making fist, I measured with a tape ruler a little over 5 inches in width with my fist fully clenched. 9.75 inches from thumb to pinky with my hands spread apart, 9 inches from base of palm to middle finger, pointer finger is 3.10 inches in circumference.

I do have the satisfaction of being able to hang from a fist jam where most people have to do an awkward sidepull.