New and Experienced Climbers Over 50 #15

ErikaNWwrote:

Lori - Regarding grades- it’s not a linear system so don’t expect the difference between grades to be calibrated. It’s also subjective and routes might change over time. One of my favorite 5.9’s in Eldo is a classic 5.6! My understanding is routes are graded according to the hardest single move, so you could have a 1-move wonder that’s 5.11 where the bulk of the climbing is at 5.9. That route will probably feel easier than a sustained 5.11. Guidebook descriptions are helpful for that.

FA parties (in my experience) generally give a grade that they think is appropriate, but sometimes they may have worked the route a bunch so have the beta wired. They might ask some friends to climb it and see what they think. Over time, and after multiple ascents, the grade will settle in.

I generally expect the jump from 10a to 10b to be similar to the jump from 5.7 to 5.8. Curious what others think?

Agree with Erika and Senor. While some climbers may be consistent in the grades they can climb -- i.e., can climb pretty much every 5.10a, some 10bs, a few 10ds, and so forth -- others (like me) have strengths and weaknesses that result in a lot of inconsistency. Both outside and indoors there are easier graded climbs that I can't do and harder ones that I can. Lori, you may be stymied by one 10b and then walk right up another one, or a 10+.  

Climbing difficulty also varies by your skill set.  If you slab climb all the time you get comfortable standing on dimes.  If you sport climb all the time those dimes are going to feel way smaller and the route would be subjectively much harder for you.  Also, route difficulty changes based on body type, size, etc.  Try to climb big roofs or fist cracks when you are 6' 4" versus someone who is 5' 2".  And some routes are just a hell of a lot harder or easier than their grade.  The grades are just meant as a guide, especially for non-sport routes.

It's even the rock itself, as a sort of crux, for me.

Maple Canyon, that cobble is so improbable, your brain just laughs at you.

The first climb each trip at City? Oh. Yeah. You actually can grab that skinny little flake and it isn't going home as a souvenir! And, OMG, I forgot what heaven friction and shoe rubber is!!! Just, just, put the foot there! It'll stay!!!!

Then there's my columnar black basalt. I'm defeated before I get my pants on and out the door. "Greased glass" is one description. With routes largely put up in the infancy of "sport" climbing, and, AND, bolted by people who were super strong. Why waste bolts on "easy" stuff? 

Best, H.

ErikaNWwrote:

Lori - Regarding grades- it’s not a linear system so don’t expect the difference between grades to be calibrated. It’s also subjective and routes might change over time. One of my favorite 5.9’s in Eldo is a classic 5.6! My understanding is routes are graded according to the hardest single move, so you could have a 1-move wonder that’s 5.11 where the bulk of the climbing is at 5.9. That route will probably feel easier than a sustained 5.11. Guidebook descriptions are helpful for that.

FA parties (in my experience) generally give a grade that they think is appropriate, but sometimes they may have worked the route a bunch so have the beta wired. They might ask some friends to climb it and see what they think. Over time, and after multiple ascents, the grade will settle in.

I generally expect the jump from 10a to 10b to be similar to the jump from 5.7 to 5.8. Curious what others think?

It isn't in the nature of the enterprise for grades to be anywhere near as consistent as a numerical scale makes them seem.  In addition to the spectrum of strengths and weaknesses of the individual climber, there are a host of sources of variability based on who did the grading and when, as well as the presence or lack of special types of difficulties in a particular area, and the grading traditions of the area.  

I don't think anyone believes anymore that climbs are rated solely by their hardest move, although there were arguments about this in the 60's and 70's.  The Brits have an (arcane to most of the rest of us) system that purportedly does rate the hardest move(s) and combines that with a grade that, unfortunately, conflates continuity and amount of protection, but no one else tries to distinguish via the grading system between a climb whose difficulty comes from continuity of difficulties vs a climb with a boulder-problem section.

At best, at each grade level contains a distribution of difficulties.  In reality, these distributions overlap, with some of the easiest at any one level being no harder and maybe easier than some of the hardest at the next lowest level, and at the other tails of the distributions, some of the hardest at one level being way harder than some of the easiest at the next lowest level.

Taking account of all these things, the grade is going to give you a rough idea of the difficulty.  I wouldn't worry at all about any one particular case that seems off-base.

Lori Milaswrote:

I know this is of interest to only a few here... but I continue to read up on diet for athletes, and especially older athletes.  I'm too wiped out after a day of climbing or hard hiking... I can see this fatigue and sometimes weakness progressing with long days of climbing, and I have sought advice from other climbers and athletes.   

(No one here is diabetic except me, but that has thrown a questionmark into my own research. How much of my own fatigue and loss of muscle is due to diabetes?  Finally I have talked with other diabetic athletes and gotten some answers: " What I did for marathon training was look at what professional marathoners (without T1D) did for nutrition and then found a way to make my T1D management fit that nutrition plan. This is as opposed to fitting your nutrition into diabetes. Your body doesn’t care if you have diabetes, all your muscles still work the same way.")

So, I'll be talking to a sport Registered Dietician soon.  With the above-mentioned climbing goals in mind, I know need a body that can get there without sacrificing general good health.    

I've been reading several books that might interest others... "Peak: The New Science of Athletic Performance That is Revolutionizing Sports"  that covers all aspects of health in sports.  The first chapter is on the science of sleep. The second chapter is on 'athletic biome'- diverse gut critters- which I had been reading about over the last few years.  And then, many chapters on nutrition.  

It seems pretty much accepted now that we need in the vicinity of 1.6 grams of protein for every Kilogram of body weight per day.  "The International Society of Sports Nutrition recommends a protein range of 1.6-2.0 kg though some studies show a benefit up to 2.2 gm/kg. It looks like 1.6g/kg/body weight is the sweet spot for protein intake... whatever dose you pick, be consistent and make sure you hit it every day.  Phillips research found older adults require more protein to reach the same muscle protein synthesis threshold compared to younger individuals"  

For me these are not just numbers but are probable solutions to the issues of muscle mass and endurance for aging adults. 

I'm also re-reading "Play On: The New Science of Elite Performance At Any Age" which does a thorough review of the training and diet for athletes as they age.

I do understand that the word 'athlete' singles out extremely active people who are sometimes training at elite levels.  I just want to take what I can and apply it here.  One thing for sure, I cannot be casual about my diet without paying dearly in fatigue and loss of strength (and will).      

I guess all of this together means I am questioning some of those 10d routes I want to climb one day... but at least want a shot at it with the right training and the right fuel. 

Hi Lori,

Everyone is different and I'm not diabetic and I also think I've got pretty good genetics, but I feel I don;t need to overthink diet too much. The only supplement I take these days is magnesium. I find I can EASILY control my weight, in the last week for instance I've easily lost 1 Kg and gone from 12.9% BF to 12.6%.  I do this my simply cutting out junk foot (Doritos) and skipping dinner. I have one small meal at 0800 in the morning and the next at around 1100 AM. The meal consists of whatever we had for dinner last night (i.e. leftovers). So I'm basically splitting a meal in to two. So that means., really, i'm only eating twice a day with a long time between meals. I climb at the moment up to five times a week. I have quite a lot of energy. I eat almost no red meat, mainly chicken and turkey.  I eat some cheese, some pasta, a lot of vegetables, several bananas a week but no other fruit. I drink about a carton of beer (4.7%) a week.  Almost all my food is home cooked. I weigh myself very often, sometimes every day and monitor my body fat by using the scales (they tell you how much BF you have) and simply looking in the mirror.  

I could not even start to think about how hard it much be for a diabetic. I see so many people struggling to lose weight and very very overweight.  My own twin brother (non identical is over 100Kg, while I'm 64.2 at 168CM (141.5 Pds, 5' 5").  I really do think a lot of this is genetic because if I'm NOT watching my weight I eat and drink like a madman and still don't actually get what you would call fat (though my 'love handles' are a bother).

PS I used to take protein powder (whey, hemp, pea etc) but I haven't used any for ages and see no difference at all in muscle mass.  

Are you wanting to climb a 10d on TR or sports or trad? I think 10d on TR should be accessible for most people. 

Frank Steinwrote:

routes are not graded by the single hardest move, but aggregate difficulty. 

From Meyers and Reed Yosemite Valley guide 1987: "the continuously strenuous cracks (are graded) as a pitch by pitch problem, not move-by-move...Face and slab climbs...(are rated by) the difficulty of their hardest move, regardless of how sustained the pitch is".

phylp phylpwrote:

From Meyers and Reed Yosemite Valley guide 1987: "the continuously strenuous cracks (are graded) as a pitch by pitch problem, not move-by-move...Face and slab climbs...(are rated by) the difficulty of their hardest move, regardless of how sustained the pitch is".

If that is the case, then the 5.14 pumpfests at places like the RRG would be only 5.11. I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. That idea of that type of grading passed a long time ago. Here is a personal experience from two recent routes I worked on. One is 35’ and the hardest move is V5. That route is 12c. The other route is a 120’ monster where the hardest move is V3 at most. That route is a very solid 12d. 

Gradeing is very much area influenced. certainly Dacks and Seneca ignore the single move  as if it simply does not count. many 5,7s @ seneca have a single 10a move on them. there are a few climbs in Nh with a similar theme. across the universe has a move on it they call 10a that Is really some kind of 11 but because it's just one move its only 10a.  there are a few like that on cathedral whitehorse etc..   Short Order comes to mind.. . 

Days are getting longer.  Didn't have to turn my headlamp on untill my last lap this evening.

phylp phylpwrote:

From Meyers and Reed Yosemite Valley guide 1987: "the continuously strenuous cracks (are graded) as a pitch by pitch problem, not move-by-move...Face and slab climbs...(are rated by) the difficulty of their hardest move, regardless of how sustained the pitch is".

A classic example of the kinds of inconsistency I mentioned earlier.  According to this, 150 feet of 5.9 jamming is going to be 5.10, but 150 feet of 5.9 edging is going to be 5.9.  How nonsensical can you get?  In any case, in the intervening 40 years, overhanging sport routes have pretty much eliminated the notion that the hardest move can serve as the grade for a climb.

One of the problems is that guidebook writers didn't follow the example set by the Tahquitz Guide, which after all gave birth to the decimal system.  The Tahquitz guide gave example climbs for each grade, so climbers could make judgments about other routes based on some universal standards.  Instead, the folks grading routes are referring to...well, we don't know what they're referring to, but it is likely to be some amorphous sense of difficulty they've personally accumulated.

In 1963, Leigh Ortenburger proposed the NCCS (National Climbing Classification System), which was a minor variant of the Decimal System together with overall "commitment" grades I--VI and aid grades A1--A5.  But the most important part of the proposal was a chart giving grade standards for a selection of regions throughout the US.  Unfortunately, regional pride won out over logic, and the  free-climbing grades buttressed by national standards never caught on.

Actually, let me clarify that. Endurance matters. For example, let’s take the pedestrian grade of V1. A route that has a V1 move cannot be easier than mid 5.10.  However, it is also possible to stack a whole bunch of V1 on top of each other, and you could end up with 5.12-.  Put a no-hands rest in there, and not so much. 

Frank Steinwrote:

If that is the case, then the 5.14 pumpfests at places like the RRG would be only 5.11. I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. That idea of that type of grading passed a long time ago. Here is a personal experience from two recent routes I worked on. One is 35’ and the hardest move is V5. That route is 12c. The other route is a 120’ monster where the hardest move is V3 at most. That route is a very solid 12d. 

For the most part I agree with you that that is the way things should be rated, but I was just showing that there is a historical and area specific difference from what you stated.  I myself don't pay too much attention to ratings other than as a guide for what I can and can't get on safely on lead (given the gear or not gear), and as a guide to how much time a multipitch route is going to take me.  My ratings: easy for me, it was climbing, quite hard, right on the verge of falling, fell or failed.

Interesting discussion on grades.

Lori -Remember this. In Josh the boulder problem at the beginning of a climb is never included in how the climb is rated.

Sometimes a climb “has your number” and for what ever reason you find it impossible. This might be the crack you can’t make fingers/hand fit or the stem you can’t stretch both feet to, or that OW that’s leaning in all the wrong directions.

But in the end getting shutdown on a climb is all part of climbing- an essential component- because without failure there would never be success. I always used failure as a personal motivation tool. When lifting weights and you get to that lift that might not happen- think about how crummy you felt when that crack said bye bye to you because you were weak- and do that lift!

Later 

rgoldwrote:

One of the problems is that guidebook writers didn't follow the example set by the Tahquitz Guide, which after all gave birth to the decimal system.  The Tahquitz guide gave example climbs for each grade, so climbers could make judgments about other routes based on some universal standards. 

This is a good point, but speaking as someone who has climbed almost every climb in the original Tahquitz index, I have to say even THEY are inconsistent in that some of the lower ranked ones are harder than some of the higher ranked ones, IMO. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

This is a good point, but speaking as someone who has climbed almost every climb in the original Tahquitz index, I have to say even THEY are inconsistent in that some of the lower ranked ones are harder than some of the higher ranked ones, IMO. 

That may be, and it speaks to the inherent "distribution" rather than "single point" nature of grades, but the idea of promulgating a classification of difficulty by way of standard examples is the main point, the examples themselves could be changed or reshuffled over time to give a more accurate picture of the intended distinctions.

Is it possible (I have no idea about this) that a half-century of polishing of some of the easier more popular routes at Tahquitz might have changed their grades?

Forgetting about the probably unattainable holy grail of national standards, one might have hoped that individual guidebooks would at least have provided a list of standard climbs for each grade that would allow visitors (including those from other countries with other grading systems altogether) to get a sense of difficulty in the guidebook's locale.  But no...

Bottom line, Lori: Climbers are inconsistent. Grades are inconsistent. You may never get that 10b, but tomorrow you could climb an 11. It happens. Sometimes everything clicks. 

"Is it possible (I have no idea about this) that a half-century of polishing of some of the easier more popular routes at Tahquitz might have changed their grades?"

They might be getting a little polished, but I don't think that's it. I think they were simply mis-rated BITD.

In my latest guidebook Best Climbs Tahquitz and Suicide Rocks, I changed many of the ratings of the easier standard classics (done in the 1930's and 1940's) to bring them in line with modern ratings, based on my experience, how my clients performed, input from other climbers, and Mountain Project votes. For some it was blasphemy to change ratings that had been around for 60 or 70 years and I got a lot of flack! But ratings have become democratic- everyone gets to vote, thanks to Mountain Project.

It's interesting to note that the 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 standards have held up over the years. And these climbs were done well before the advent of sticky rubber. Mechanics Route (runout 5.8) was led by Dick Jones, who wore sneakers and was tied into a manilla rope, in the fall of 1937! 

I've never heard anyone downrating The Open Book (considered America's benchmark 5.9) first freed by none other than Royal Robbins in 1952.

TAHQUITZ Decimal System standards:

5.0 - The Trough, FA 1936 (now rated 5.4)

5.1 - Fingertip Traverse, FA 1936 (now 5.4)

5.2 - Frightful Variation of The Trough, FA 1944 (no change)

5.3 - East Lark, FA 1950 (now 5.5)

5.4 - Angel's Fright, FA 1936 (now 5.6)

5.5 - Left Ski Track  FA 1947 (now 5.6)

5.6 - Sahara Terror FA 1942 (now 5.7)

5.7 - Fingertrip  FA 1946 (no change)

5.8 R- Mechanic's Route FA 1937 (no change).

5.9 - The Open Book FFA 1952 by Royal Robbins (no change)

Bob Gaineswrote:

"Is it possible (I have no idea about this) that a half-century of polishing of some of the easier more popular routes at Tahquitz might have changed their grades?"

They might be getting a little polished, but I don't think that's it. I think they were simply mis-rated BITD.

In my latest guidebook Best Climbs Tahquitz and Suicide Rocks, I changed many of the ratings of the easier standard classics (done in the 1930's and 1940's) to bring them in line with modern ratings, based on my experience, how my clients performed, input from other climbers, and Mountain Project votes. For some it was blasphemy to change ratings that had been around for 50 years and I got a lot of flack! But ratings have become democratic- everyone gets to vote, thanks to Mountain Project.

It's interesting to note that the 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 standards have held up over the years. And these climbs were done well before the advent of sticky rubber. Mechanics Route (runout 5.8) was led by Dick Jones, who wore sneakers and was tied into a manilla rope, in the fall of 1937! 

I've never heard anyone downrating The Open Book (considered America's benchmark 5.9) first freed by none other than Royal Robbins in 1952.

TAHQUITZ Decimal System standards:

5.0 - The Trough, FA 1936 (now rated 5.4)

5.1 - Fingertip Traverse, FA 1936 (now 5.4)

5.2 - Frightful Variation of The Trough, FA 1944 (no change)

5.3 - East Lark, FA 1950 (now 5.5)

5.4 - Angel's Fright, FA 1936 (now 5.6)

5.5 - Left Ski Track  FA 1947 (now 5.6)

5.6 - Sahara Terror FA 1942 (now 5.7)

5.7 - Fingertrip  FA 1946 (no change)

5.8 R- Mechanic's Route FA 1937 (no change).

5.9 - The Open Book FFA 1952 by Royal Robbins (no change)

I'm glad to hear you say this, Bob. I agree that the old classics haven't become harder due to polishing. I think they were either mis-rated back in the day or, more likely, climbing techniques and technology have improved a bit and shifted the standard more on some than others. For example, it's not in the list of Standards but White Maiden's Walkway at Tahquitz is a popular classic. It's supposedly a 5.4 and was done in 1937. You could fuck around and traverse all over the place to do the original 5.4 route that was done in 1937 with hobnail boots and manila rope. But I don't have the patience for that, especially when there's a much more aesthetic 5.6-5.7 line that is protectable with modern cams and is really fun, way more fun the all the weird step-arounds and tip-toeing on ledges.

And some things that were probably terrifying BITD, like Open Book, are much less so because you just pop in a couple #4 cams when the going gets wide.

BTW. Bob, do you know if the "original" Angel's Fright finish was the slab finish or the so-called 5.7 finger crack finish? I find the slab way more terrifying than the "harder" finish.

Lori, don't overthink the grades. Some climbs come naturally and others don't. When one doesn't, it will either call you back for more, or it won't. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

I'm glad to hear you say this, Bob. I agree that the old classics haven't become harder due to polishing. I think they were either mis-rated back in the day or, more likely, climbing techniques and technology have improved a bit and shifted the standard more on some than others. For example, it's not in the list of Standards but White Maiden's Walkway at Tahquitz is a popular classic. It's supposedly a 5.4 and was done in 1937. You could fuck around and traverse all over the place to do the original 5.4 route that was done in 1937 with hobnail boots and manila rope. But I don't have the patience for that, especially when there's a much more aesthetic 5.6-5.7 line that is protectable with modern cams and is really fun, way more fun the all the weird step-arounds and tip-toeing on ledges.

And some things that were probably terrifying BITD, like Open Book, are much less so because you just pop in a couple #4 cams when the going gets wide.

BTW. Bob, do you know if the "original" Angel's Fright finish was the slab finish or the so-called 5.7 finger crack finish? I find the slab way more terrifying than the "harder" finish.

Hi Senor. I believe the original finish was actually to the right of both the slab finish with the lone bolt and the lieback pitch. Funny, I always found the slab 5.easy and the crack pitch more difficult, although it's rated 5.6 in the 2001 book I did with Randy and in my Best Climbs book. 5.7 seems more accurate now that I think about it.

Wilts describes the original finish this way:

"The usual route ascends large three-foot steps, then bears right over to bushes to a very marked trough leading further right to a short, easy overhang which brings one to the west end of the West Shoulder. Several variations to the left of this route are possible and offer interesting friction and lieback pitches."

I don't think I've ever done the "original finish." 

Climbing videos are so boring...

https://youtu.be/cwbVFMWWkAE