5.XX w/a V-whatever section

question for the mob...what's up w/route descriptions like, "it's a 5.XX with a V-whatever crux"?

i get it but i don't get it. i've climbed a number of climbs with moves that were reminiscent of boulder problems. but, that's simply because they were steep (e.g. overhanging) and were in the hard 11/12 range.

and, in terms of difficulty, that's where a lot of boulder problems start. so, yeah, it felt like bouldering because that's the kind of movement required for a lot of problems. but, it's also the kind of movement required for seriously overhanging routes that are toward the harder end of the scale.

when did 'bouldering' become a style of movement rather than simply climbing w/o a rope on something that's not quite big enough to be called a free solo. and, if it did, what delineates that style of movement from the movement required to climbing really steep routes?

does having to make 4 movements with my feet in order to set up for the next hand movement make it a bouldering move? i suppose i do more of that kind of movement when bouldering than i do when climbing. but, there are still plenty of climbs that require movement like that.

what would cause you to describe a section of a route using the V-scale?

It's because most climbers, when discussing short crux sections, or even one single move, are more versed in v-ratings to describe those sections. This might have to do with the fact that YDS ratings are so dependent on endurance, and the overall experience of the entire route, that they do not really describe individual moves all that well.

So, usually when you hear someone use a v-rating in describing a route, it's something like "Oh, Apollo Reed is a lot of sustained 11+ climbing to a four move v3 crux." That describes it way better than using any sort of language exclusive to the YDS.

Because it gives you way more info as Camhead said.

Imagine two routes, both 5.11c:

Route A is 125' of sustained movement with no discernable crux. Route B is 100' of 5.2 to a 4 move crux to 15' more feet of 5.2.

Seeing them decribed as 5.11c V0 and 5.11c V3 tells me a lot about what to expect. If it were up to me, every route would be described this way.

Will S wrote:Because it gives you way more info as Camhead said. Imagine two routes, both 5.11c: Route A is 125' of sustained movement with no discernable crux. Route B is 100' of 5.2 to a 4 move crux to 15' more feet of 5.2. Seeing them decribed as 5.11c V0 and 5.11c V3 tells me a lot about what to expect. If it were up to me, every route would be described this way.

This picture shows the reasoning behind using a YDS/Vgrade hybrid.

Analysis here: The Landscape: a new look at route grades

using the v-scale to describe a few moves makes sense. but, 5.11 w/a v3 crux doesn't really tell you that it's easy up to and after that point. unless, i guess, you're assuming that the rest must be easy if the crux is distinct and at the 5.11 level.

and, fwiw, i think i'd just describe route B as a one move wonder. er, four move wonder in this case. but, anyway...

Crag Dweller wrote:using the v-scale to describe a few moves makes sense. but, 5.11 w/a v3 crux doesn't really tell you that it's easy up to and after that point. unless, i guess, you're assuming that the rest must be easy if the crux is distinct and at the 5.11 level.

That is exactly what the hybrid grade is telling you. If the graph is accurate (and it's not, since it doesn't have enough data points) then 5.11 could really be describe as anything from 5.11/v4 to 5.11/v1. With short and bouldery (or one move wonders) on one end and 120 ft stacked v1 routes on the other.

Rumney is the perfect place to use to describe how routes can be distinctly broken up into boulder problems.

s.price wrote:Must we over analyze everything?

Must we limit other people's rights to discuss whatever the fuck they want in their free time?

RyanJ wrote: This picture shows the reasoning behind using a YDS/Vgrade hybrid. Analysis here: The Landscape: a new look at route grades

This chart is a really cool idea. It would be interesting to take way more climbs, based on what consensus is on their boulder problem cruxes, and see how they fall into the plot.

I can think of a couple climbs that would throw the crux moves of 13-/12+ down even lower than the chart implies. Tuna Town (12+), and Apollo Reed (13-) both would be pure endurance climbs at the far right end of the scale, and their cruxes are each around v3 (though I've heard some people say that Tuna Town's upper section is as easy as v2). The chart implies that even pure endurance climbs at the 12+/13- level will have moves at least as hard as v4+.

More input needed!

s.price wrote:Damn Mono, Chill! It was just a question and really a small part of this discussion. In no way does it limit our ability to discuss whatever the fuck we want.

Fair enough, but your first comment seems designed to make the folks interested in this question feel stupid or like they're wasting their time. Just because you're not interested, doesn't mean you have to crap on the conversation.

I have no insecurity about admitting that I find the chart pretty cool on a theoretical level. I agree that it would also be cool to put more routes, with more variety, on it, giving it more statistical significance.

Something I've found, however, is that bouldering grades for route climbing often seem somewhat inflated. At the risk of sounding like I'm spraying, I know that I generally can boulder, even when out of shape, somewhere around V7. My PR is V10, but I regularly get shut down by 8s and 9s (and sometimes easier). I've done several routes that claim to have cruxes in the V6-V8 range, sometimes after a good bit of hard climbing to get there. Maybe I'm not giving myself enough credit, but it seems unlikely that I can do boulder moves near my limit - with ease compared to similar grades on the ground - after having climbed 50 feet to get there.

My speculation is that the combined effects of rope management, fatigue, and the off-the-ground perspective make moves seem harder. When someone says that a route has a V5 crux, it often seems that if those same moves were on the ground, they would be a grade or two lower.

I like this idea - although it's not a new one. The UK rating system has been hybrid for decades now. There's a technical grade for the hardest move (1a, b,c through to 7a, b, c) and an adjective to describe the overall difficulty of the route (Easy, Moderate, Severe, Very Severe, Extreme or E1 thru E10 open-ended). But it goes further than the proposal listed above; the adjective can describe not only how strenuous the route may be, but also how well or poorly protected it is. Of course combining 5.XX and V-whatever with G, PG, R or X or solve that.

I foresee a problem with this proposal though; for those people who don't climb any harder than say 5.10+ (more than likely most of the recreational climbers in the US) the V0 rating which covers 5.0 to 5.10a/b would be way too broad - so this system only works for climbs which most people will never do.

So my recommendation is to adopt the UK system!

RyanJ wrote: That is exactly what the hybrid grade is telling you. If the graph is accurate (and it's not, since it doesn't have enough data points) then 5.11 could really be describe as anything from 5.11/v4 to 5.11/v1. With short and bouldery (or one move wonders) on one end and 120 ft stacked v1 routes on the other.

ok, i get it now. thanks.

s.price wrote: Good Point. And i am interested in this. And my question is valid. So far I have found this to be educational. I would say that was more like pissin than crappin.

And I guess I'd rather be damp than covered in sh**. :)

What about a route that has multiple bouldery cruxes, how would that show up as a rating? And what defines a in-route boulder sequence anyway? "I know it when I see it" is how porn is defined, but now we have to add that to routes? Is a dyno move rated V-something or 5-something? What about those tall fuckers who just reach over your V-problem? Do we have to go to seminars to learn how to apply this system? How much do the classes cost? Does everyone who climbs 5.10/V0 get labeled a MonoRate? Do we all have to start smoking pot now? Isn't stepping off the ground or pulling your ass off the ground half the problem for most boulders? What does it mean if you stick-clip the V-problem if its the first 10 feet? How do you get a SDS mid-route to increase its V-ness?

The free line of Washington Column was considered 5.12c V10. I think this is responsible because it really isn't a 13d/14a climb. This way free climbers know that the sustained nature of the climb is only in the twelves, with one really hard move on Kor roof.

Topo: stanford.edu/~clint/yos/Sou…

camhead wrote:It's because most climbers, when discussing short crux sections, or even one single move, are more versed in v-ratings to describe those sections. This might have to do with the fact that YDS ratings are so dependent on endurance, and the overall experience of the entire route, that they do not really describe individual moves all that well. So, usually when you hear someone use a v-rating in describing a route, it's something like "Oh, Apollo Reed is a lot of sustained 11+ climbing to a four move v3 crux." That describes it way better than using any sort of language exclusive to the YDS.

Please don't say 'most climbers'. I doubt very much that is true. Maybe 'most under age 25' would be better evaluation. But many many climbers don't give a hoot about Vwhatever ratings.

I like the idea of describing a section of a route as a V-rating, simply because V ratings are used to describe short sections of intense/continuous moves. Route ratings describe a whole route and should remain as such.

The only way I think the "5.11 v3" style should be used is on routes that are caught in the middle, a "boulder problem" more reminiscent of a solo, or a short sport route that feels more like a boulder problem. This should only be used if the climb is commonly done as both a route and a boulder problem.

I don't think routes need to be graded "5.11 V3 G." Is there no value in surprises or reading into the worded description of a climb. I can figure the rest out when someone calls a 5.11 "bouldery," I understand that it probably has a V3ish crux, we don't need to amend the rating system to describe the route section by section.

Leave that to those climbing 5.13-15 to whom it actually matters that the route is V8 to a V10 crux to sustained V6 climbing, otherwise, leave it be.

Brendan Blanchard wrote:I like the idea of describing a section of a route as a V-rating, simply because V ratings are used to describe short sections of intense/continuous moves.

Brendan Blanchard wrote:I can figure the rest out when someone calls a 5.11 "bouldery," I understand that it probably has a V3ish crux, we don't need to amend the rating system to describe the route section by section.

So which is it? Hybrid or standalone YDS? Your position jumps around quite a bit throughout your post.

Brendan Blanchard wrote: The only way I think the "5.11 v3" style should be used is on routes that are caught in the middle, a "boulder problem" more reminiscent of a solo, or a short sport route that feels more like a boulder problem. This should only be used if the climb is commonly done as both a route and a boulder problem.

How is this line of reasoning in compliance with the following statement?

Brendan Blanchard wrote:Leave that to those climbing 5.13-15 to whom it actually matters that the route is V8 to a V10 crux to sustained V6 climbing, otherwise, leave it be.

So hybrids are to only be used on solos/highballs/short bouldery sport routes 5.12 and under, and then on any length route 5.13 and up? This arbitrary change in route ratings based on difficulty seems unnecessary.

Why do you suggest it is only applicable at grades above 5.12? Noting a V2 intro to V5 crux followed by sustained V3 climbing is just as informative to a 5.12 climber as your example would be for a 5.14 climber.

Brendan Blanchard wrote: I don't think routes need to be graded "5.11 V3 G." Is there no value in surprises or reading into the worded description of a climb.

The hybrid grade can serve as a summary of a thoughtfully worded route description.

Keith Earley wrote: I think this is responsible because it really isn't a 13d/14a climb.

Huh? Of course it is a 14- climb.

I think you're viewing the purpose of adding a V-grade a little backwards. The most useful part of seeing the V10 on a route like that is knowing that you being a V8 boulderer with miles of endurance (qualities that WILL get you up 14- routes in say the Red or Rifle) won't get the job done, you need to have the power/strength to boulder V10.

Wiring a route down and doing a little PE training can often solve a route that is just sustained, but without enough power to do the hardest sequence, you're SOL.

How does this factor in to the equation?