Hang Dogging and Downgrading

GabeO wrote: That's not what I said, and not what I'm asking for. GO

Right. I'm merely pointing out that the code you're suggesting wouldn't prevent people from claiming to have sent when they in fact, did not.

Your recommended adjustments would enable the system to further categorize ticks and legitimize only the true sends in the consensus rating, which would only work if people were being honest. That's all I'm saying. Unless I am misunderstanding you.

But your adjustments could possibly result in a more accurate grade than the current system. Not everyone's a liar after all.

Eric D wrote:I have also downgraded routes that I didn't redpoint. You can get a sense for a route's difficulty even without redpointing. I took a fall on the Rainbow Wall but still gave feedback on it's grade on the MP page.

No, you can't get a sense of the route. You don't get the transitions and you don't get the pump. Sure you can give it a rating on MP or any site but until there's a redpoint on your side it doesn't mean much.

Ratings are eventually consensus but in the beginning it's probably just the FA's and a couple of buddies. Maybe it gets easier, maybe not but with enough experienced climbers redpointing the climb there should be a pretty accurate number to paste into the guide.

I read through everyone's super specific beta, then downgrade it from my couch.

That's what they mean be "off the couch 5.12 climber", right?

a;wroghNL?WKRNG/alwjkrgns,v >OWRLJLSKM. WEG;OFAUHWERFK. JWEFKKJ,DMNC qlWEka.fnc/qeLak.dsnfc/q;oa.jsdcnQLEabjdfc.KWEJSdn,cekfmcljwdnvkjwbv.kWJBcv<SD cJSD clJD <Sc.

TR purist wrote: I dont know Mr Birkett from a hole in my head but what he said is very true, just dont tell the spurt climbers cause they wont be sold on that

You can't possibly be serious. Every sport climber worth their salt can tell you the grade they can onsight.

I'd be willing to bet that no matter what grade you tell me you can onsight, I can find a route at or below your grade that will force you to take a hang and claim a redpoint instead. That doesn't make you any less of a climber.

Honestly. Y'all are taking it too seriously.

Dow Williams wrote:I see a lot of those Gunkie types.

Didn't you climb with some Gunkie who downgraded Castleton North Face to like low/mid ten or nine plus?

General rule: if I can climb it, it's not 5.10
If I hang, it's probably a 5.7 - that is one helluva awkward grade

Richard M. Wright wrote:In one of his videos Dave Birkett said that your level of onsight was your level of climbing. Most of us would be humbled to face that truth.

+1

The dude who taught me to climb made it clear: you climb whatever grade you can safely pull off in the rain with a backpack on. Ten years later, I'm still a proud 5.8 climber.

s.price wrote: The engineer of the send train has a different view from all riding in the back.

Well said.

GabeO wrote: That's not what I said, and not what I'm asking for. GO

In all fairness, it's a really unimportant thing you ask ;).

Sure, I've known the dog 'n fluffer. You just point, laugh, and move on with your life. NBD.

Good thing non climbers don't come to this site. They would think we were all ego-maniacal douchebags.

rging wrote:Good thing non climbers don't come to this site. They would think we were all ego-maniacal douchebags.

Many climbers think that too

lucander wrote: Didn't you climb with some Gunkie who downgraded Castleton North Face to like low/mid ten or nine plus? General rule: if I can climb it, it's not 5.10 If I hang, it's probably a 5.7 - that is one helluva awkward grade

Learned in the Gunks and then moved west after school. Returned on a fall trip climbing VERY strong for me that season. Gunks climbing is all about hanging out while you fiddle in gear. I think if you're a seasoned Gunks climber, heading west can be hard because you pretty much pull on horizontals all day long. All the vertical cracks and non-positive edges etc etc can feel WEIRD for a while. So yeah, a 5.9 Gunks climber could certainly struggle in Josh. I saw it when a friend visited from the gunk to climb with me in Squamish. He got WORKED for a few days. Going West to East is easier IMO - Not as technique driven - Pulling horizontals isn't as hard to figure out.

That said, there is truth in some grades at the Gunks being 'bagged. Part of that is, with a few exceptions, you simply don't SEE grades much below 5.7 many places. Gunks started at 5.0 and worked up so there's more distribution. The "easiest" climb at many places is probably 5.6-5.7 so the grading there is more compressed.

I think the Gunks get more in line with other areas once you get into the 10s and up. Still solid for the grade but not as much of a surprise as the 5.5-5.8 range in the Gunks.

Everyone agrees that different areas have different standards. Some Yosemite 5.9's would easily be considered 10's elsewhere. Because of this, people who learned to climb in different areas will have different perceptions of how hard a particular grade should feel. It's as simple as that.

For example I learned to trad climb at Seneca Rocks, where the general consensus is that the ratings are pretty stiff. So when I climb a 5.10 elsewhere and think back and compare it to all the 5.10's I have done at Seneca, I'm probably more likely to downgrade it than someone who learned to climb at RRG.

Does that make me wrong? I think not. Ratings are inherently subjective. One would expect that over time, this process would lead to a more uniform standard of the YDS.

Downgrading a route you hangdogged is just lame. If you didn't send, you have no business grading it at all, let alone downgrading it.

mattm wrote: That said, there is truth in some grades at the Gunks being 'bagged.

While a lot of the locals here (Gunks) probably like the area's rep as having stout grades, the reality isn't in line with the historical reputation. Fully 2/3 of Gunks classics (i.e. starred routes in the guidebook) have seen their rating increased in the last 20-30 years, bringing them more in line with norms across the rest of the climbing universe. There are surely a few remaining 'bags, but nothing like it used to be.

Opinions are like assholes, and everyone plays their own game climbing. That said, I don't believe people have any buisness down grading any route they don't onsight on lead.

Derrick W wrote:Downgrading a route you hangdogged is just lame. If you didn't send, you have no business grading it at all, let alone downgrading it.

+1. Well put.

And let's not even get into Indian Creek, where if you have big hands 5.10 feels like 5.7, and 5.11+ feels like 5.13.

Peter Franzen wrote:And let's not even get into Indian Creek, where if you have big hands 5.10 feels like 5.7, and 5.11+ feels like 5.13.

There might as well not be grades at the creek. Just sizes.

Gunkiemike wrote: Fully 2/3 of Gunks classics (i.e. starred routes in the guidebook) have seen their rating increased in the last 20-30 years, bringing them more in line with norms across the rest of the climbing universe.

Yeah, like Coexistence or 10,000 Restless Virgins - I've done plenty of 7a+ routes that felt easier.

Coming from France, I found Gunks to be very brutish and power-oriented, more like bouldering with a rope. Also, Gunks climbers take their + and "d" grades very seriously :)

Gumby Move

Sounds like something he would pull