grading a climb by the single hardest move

Crag Dweller wrote:imo, routes should be graded based on the hardest move(s) because that is the level of ability required to complete the route. if 5.10 is the absolute limit of your ability, it doesn't matter whether a 5.10 climb has only one 5.11 move or many...it's going to be beyond your ability.

i don't think so, because you can hangdog while you figure out the move, then lower, rest, and redpoint. if someone is completely incapable of doing a single "5.11 move" no matter how much time they have to practice it, then they are also most likely incapable of sending a sustained 5.11 with no move harder than 10+ because they lack the skill to do the "5.10 moves" efficiently.

what about the 5.11 sport boy that gets they ass shut down on the 5.7+ cracky crack

page 2 bitches

As some have said above, rating a climb based on its hardest move is probably one of the least subjective methods to making grades. What I find sustained does not even compare to what someone who climbs 4-5 days a week finds sustained. but most people can come to a conclusion on the actual difficulty of executing a single move.

I like having climbs graded by their single hardest move because it tells me if I at least have a chance of getting up it. What if you had a climb that 90% is 5.8-5.9 and then one move is a .13b move. would you down grade the whole climb(say to 12a) because it is not continuous at the .13b?? if so I might be inclined to get on it and find myself in over my head.

I understand the sustained argument but I think it's just too subjective to each climber. You just have to accept the fact that a sustained .11a might kick your ass while the .12b one move wonder is a walk for you.

oh yea, climb for fun not the grade, That's what schools for!!

The Casual Route on the Diamond is 10a, that's ONE 10a move with many pitches of 5.8 or 5.9, but I'd still call it 10a. I was working a 12a this weekend, but most of it is 11a/b, I can't pull the 12 move (and barely the 11's), did I climb MOST of a 12a? Yes. Most people creating routes try to keep the grade somewhat consistent over the length of a pitch, when you run into a route that that has mostly moderate climbing and one or two really hard moves, that's called a 5.9 C1, etc. What's my point? The hardest free move intended to be pulled on the route in combination with how sustained it is determine the grade. I'm glad I could add absolutely nothing to this conversation, good day.

Bob Packwood wrote:Killis Howard, brah, your post is amazing. Irrespective of whether I agree or not, you ought to write columns for Climbing mag because then I would read it.

I'll second that.

EVS wrote: I'm glad I could add absolutely nothing to this conversation, good day.

+.8

(which should be .12a, given that double-crux multi-syllabic wording, that overall, each individual word is no harder than .10b to say; strung together by .6 pronouns, adjectives, & nouns)

Buff Johnson wrote:what about the 5.11 sport boy that gets they ass shut down on the 5.7+ cracky crack page 2 bitches

I resemble that comment.

People keep mentioning getting up a route. Just because you can get up the route, move by move, bolt by bolt, does not mean that you can SEND the route in its entirety. Everyone knows a bouldering monkey who can throw down on a V8 but can't SEND a 5.11. Being able to do one 5.13 move doesn't necessarily make you a 5.13 climber. For example, I recently sent two routes. Route 'A' had a short, but hard sequence that was harder than anything on route 'B'. Despite this, route 'B' is rated more difficult than route 'A'....and it should be. Why? Because route 'B' had 75 feet of sustained hard climbing before the crux sequence, while route 'A' had "easy" climbing surrounding the crux. I sent route 'A' in half as many go's as route 'B' despite the fact that I am an endurance climber and route 'B' should be my strength. The sustained nature of the climb DOES count.

Buff Johnson wrote:what about the 5.11 sport boy that gets they ass shut down on the 5.7+ cracky crack page 2 bitches

Buff,
This is why I am way more amped about onsighting 5.10+ trad than 5.12 sport. Trad requires an additional set of skills and I don't think you can necessarily compare the two. I can run laps on 5.xx sport all day, but those pesky 5.9 offwidths in the mountains leave me crying and bruised.

Yeah man, it's like you can't "send" until you SEND.

It's - Free, Mixed, Aid, No.

Jon Ruland wrote: i don't think so, because you can hangdog while you figure out the move, then lower, rest, and redpoint. if someone is completely incapable of doing a single "5.11 move" no matter how much time they have to practice it, then they are also most likely incapable of sending a sustained 5.11 with no move harder than 10+ because they lack the skill to do the "5.10 moves" efficiently.

i think that, if that person was able to figure out the moves and send the route, 5.11 is within his/her ability. that's not to say s/he would then be able to onsight any 5.11 or, for that matter, be able to finish every 5.11 climb. but, i would imagine most of us have come across a climb (or many) rated within our ability that gave us problems.

i would argue the 5.11 in your example is actually a 5.10+ because the hardest moves are 5.10+. i would describe it as a sustained 5.10+. and, i agree, there would likely be many 5.10 climbers who have difficulty with the route. but, imo, that isn't a reason to change the grade. instead, it's a reason to improve endurance.

now, if we're talking about 200 hundred foot routes created by linking two pitches >5.13, i don't have an opinion. maybe i'll get on one of those routes one day and have an opinion. but, i'm not holding my breath until that happens.

Monomaniac wrote: Name one.

Here's a couple
Synapse Collapse
Luscious (it's just 5.11 on this site, 5.11c on rc.com, and I think I've seen it called 5.11d somewhere)

I had a few more examples but a lot of them have been downrated on this site, and I suppose you could write them off as guidebook errors.

The problem with rating climbs based on endurance is that it's so subjective. It's a lot easier for people to agree that a single move felt like easy 5.10 than it is to agree on what a sustained 5.10- should be rated. Some people might say 5.10+, some might say 5.12. And it used to be that a a one-move-wonder wasn't the standard for the grade, with any climbs involving more than one move of that grade being rated harder. Many older climbs with mostly 5.8 and 5.9 climbing will be rated "5.9", even if it has a move or two of 5.10- in it somewhere. I'm sure there's some other things that have led to grade inflation at a lot of crags but I think it's mostly this idea of "sustained = harder grade".

"Lynn Hill's original climbing grade for the "Free Nose" was 5.13b. The Free Nose and the Free Nose in a day remained unrepeated over 10 years after Hill's first ascents - despite numerous attempts by some of the best big wall climbers in the world. This has prompted some to suggest a grade of at least 5.14a may be more accurate, and cements the Free Nose ascents as two of the most impressive achievements in climbing history. Then, on Oct 14, 2005, the team of Caldwell and Rodden also freed the Nose, and on Oct 16, 2005, Caldwell freed it in less than 12 hours."

From our friend wiki./ Offered here as an illustration of the subjectivity of this exercise. Some have suggested that Ms. Hill's smaller fingers enabled her to free some of the pitches. So what, it's still a world class achievement.

Here's an example that most everyone can relate to (and de-bunks the myth that this is strictly a sport climbing issue, or strictly a 5.13 issue):

The Enduro Corner pitch of Astroman is 5.11c.
The Boulder Problem pitch of Astroman is also 5.11c.

Anyone who has climbed this route please share with the group how the hardest move on each pitch compares.

(...if you're dying of anticipation like me, I'll tell you, the Boulder Problem pitch has WAAAAAY harder moves than the Enduro Corner. In fact, I doubt the Enduro Corner has a single move harder than ~10b.)

Buff Johnson wrote: +.8 (which should be .12a, given that double-crux multi-syllabic wording, that overall, each individual word is no harder than .10b to say; strung together by .6 pronouns, adjectives, & nouns)

I am a cunni(ng)-lingus(t), I will admit

Bryan Gohn wrote: Here's a couple Synapse Collapse

Ya this looks like a "5.8 move" to me:

I would rate the Boulder Problem 5.11c. I would rate the Enduro Corner 5.11c. This is because ratings should reflect the overall effort/skill/power required to send. As it turned out, the Enduro Corner was an easy onsight for me. The Boulder Problem was the only place I fell on the entire route, including the Harding Slot. I think this says nothing about the ratings of the pitches (both are accurate) and everything about my strengths and weaknesses as a climber.

Also on the Washington Column is the South Face. When Matt Wilder freed it, he rated it V10. When you think about it, this does a lot more to describe the difficulties than rating it Grade V 5.14. A similar logic could be used to rate the Boulder Problem on Astroman. However, on Astroman, thanks to the very names of the pitches, everyone knows exactly what to expect.

Monomaniac wrote: Ya this looks like a "5.8 move" to me:

It's been a couple years but that's what I remember. Good, incut handholds and buckets to put your feet in although that might not be obvious from a photo. It is pumpy clipping the anchors, but if that last bit was a bouldering problem it would be V0-

Here's a 5.6 at the Gunks for the sake of comparison

I think its noteworthy that most climbers that train do so with a mixed focus on power and endurance. Historical standards aside, this seems to legitimize the idea that both the single hardest move and the sustained nature of a route could be taken into consideration when deciding upon a grade.