New and Experienced Climbers Over 50 #15

Lori Milas wrote:

Carl, Helen... you may be interested in this 5.8 caper The Flake.  As a mother, I want to spank this kid for taking such a risk.  As a climber, I just want to climb it (with a rope). 

I have mixed feelings about stuff like this. As a mom, with my son my first climbing partner, both of us new to it? I had to let go of "mom" somewhat, and give him that trust to do or die, including if mom is who got taken out. It's simply part of the really tight partnerships we have, with people we really trust.

But recording something like this? Would I want to see it, this recording, if it didn't go well? 

Yeah....kinda. I'd rather replay reality over and over until I got through it, since the brain will try so hard to picture it and understand.

I'm fully aware I'm posting this, today, of all days, when it's a tough, tough, day in CO. 

Now, this specific video? No. To me, yes he looks good enough....but.

There is a big difference between the level of risk when hands are palms flat on rock, versus even a single hand on something that one arm could hold, if a foot slid even a dinky bit off slab like this. This is just at the edge of too steep to solo, as a slab, but that's just my opinion. It would be a stupid thing to kill yourself on, again, my opinion. There's just no reason to do this, except to post it. Opinion. And that, to me, especially as a mom, but even more so as a climber, is a huge red flag that you are into dangerous territory. Justifying somehow, stuff you might not otherwise do.

I have friends who solo, friends who climb ice, friends who do scary dangerous alpine stuff....and the good friend who died last year, in what should have been a simple rappel on the way back out of the mountains. His father and brothers were there, and I am glad of that, for the sake of the family. All of that, even the bad ending, my friends did what they did, with careful planning, thought, and preparation. The risks were weighed.

Today?

Hey. I'm thinking of all of our Boulder community, and, I admit it, selfishly grateful none of my friends were on that horrible list. 

I'm on a list too, I'm sure. We all are. Is it tomorrow...or forty years from now?

Not knowing, is a good thing. It makes all the stupid small things fall away, and the important small things even more cherished.

Including all of you, and the lovely bantering for many, many, pages.

Sunny here, today. But, yet again, windy, and, snow on the ground this morning after lots more rain than forecast yesterday. Yet another climbing day cancelled.

But, today was the first yardwork day! That made Catcat very pleased, and it was a good day for some mindless achievement, tiny as it was, out in the sun.

Best, Helen

Sweet weather here in Massachusetts,  was actually too warm in the sun yesterday.  Did all the moves on this one but no link yet, around V8

Andrew Rice wrote:

Yeah, but if you look at here on MP where, just as you say, the rating is based on consensus, people who climb in particular areas tend to follow the lead of the local scale-ethic. One thing I think is missing from the YDS is any meaningful sense of what makes a particular grade that number/letter, other than being harder than what's below it on the scale and easier than something above.

I've really learned not to pay too much attention to grades and climb things that look interesting. I'm no great shakes as a climber but I'm skilled enough now to either cheat my way up things if I get in over my head or bail if I can't go up. That takes a lot of the drama out of jumping in too deep. 

I agree with this approach.  But perhaps in North America we should change to the British grading system.  Then we'd be so confused that we'd drop the subject.

Well, there actually is (was) a meaningful way to grade YDS!

Old lady H wrote:

EDIT to add, New Toy is not only on here, but has great comments about old school routes and runouts! I know three of the people commenting, too, lol! 

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105741098/new-toy

Interesting conversations...I remember my leads of New Toy and Double Vision.  The TR ascents?  Not so much.

Good times!

Mark Frumkin wrote:

Well, there actually is (was) a meaningful way to grade YDS!

Which is what? I've already climbed almost all of the original "index" climbs at Tahquitz. Is there something else I'm supposed to do?

Brian in SLC wrote:

I remember my leads of New Toy and Double Vision.  The TR ascents?  Not so much.

I remember my 2 TR ascents of New Toy.  It's a beautiful route with interesting movement and that is what I remember. There are R routes I've led on GPA that I don't remember anything about at this point. Too long ago, not interesting enough climbing?  Whether it's lead, follow, or TR, I tend to remember the good routes, interesting movement, and the people I'm with.

Mark Frumkin wrote:

Well, there actually is (was) a meaningful way to grade YDS!

I think what Mark is referring to is how YDS was originally used: to grade the hardest move. So, in that sense, you could have a route with one 5.9 move, or a route that's continuous 5.9. Our YDS says both are 5.9. A couple of assumptions were made. One, that a climber could look up at the route and size it up, and two, that word-of-mouth in the community would get around. 

"That thing's a one move wonder..."

or "It never lets up on you, it's always one hard move after another, after another..."

But today we have so many climbers, and many who travel, that the word-of-mouth business is unreliable at best. And to expect many of today's climbers to be able to size up a route from the ground is about like expecting someone fresh out of school with a BA to have read the classics and to be able to speak, read, and write a foreign language.

So, the system evolves, and a route with one 5.9 move might be called 5.8 (or 5.9) while the route with a long stretch of continuous 5.9 might be seen as 5.10. Now we have some real ambiguity. Not only do we get to argue about the grade of a particular move, we get to argue about the whole darn route.

For example, a route like Ankles Away at the Needles was originally graded 5.11c. That’s the grade of the crux move. No problem. Anyone can see the 100+ foot second pitch is steep thin fingers or tips all the way. If you could count on the crux move being 5.11c, and you had some depth climbing at that grade, you could decide that it looked enduro but that it was achievable.

 But now grades get tossed around for that route as high as 5.12b, which it is not, even counting for endurance. But what does our solid 5.11 climber think when they see a 5.12a grade?

The best solution, as I see it, is to be less specific. + or – vs a/b/c/d is one way to do it. My solution for Ankles Away is to simplify the problem even more. It’s just plain 5.11. IMO it’s not 5.12 even factoring endurance. An efficient climber who can place good thin gear easily is not going to be too stressed on this rig, but a strong but inefficient climber less well versed in placing pro could get smoked. So now we either adjust the grade for better or lesser climbers, or just keep it simple.

Kristian Solem wrote:

I think what Mark is referring to is how YDS was originally used: to grade the hardest move. So, in that sense, you could have a route with one 5.9 move, or a route that's continuous 5.9. Our YDS says both are 5.9. A couple of assumptions were made. One, that a climber could look up at the route and size it up, and two, that word-of-mouth in the community would get around. 

"That thing's a one move wonder..."

or "It never lets up on you, it's always one hard move after another, after another..."

But today we have so many climbers, and many who travel, that the word-of-mouth business is unreliable at best. And to expect many of today's climbers to be able to size up a route from the ground is about like expecting someone fresh out of school with a BA to have read the classics and to be able to speak, read, and write a foreign language.

So, the system evolves, and a route with one 5.9 move might be called 5.8 (or 5.9) while the route with a long stretch of continuous 5.9 might be seen as 5.10. Now we have some real ambiguity. Not only do we get to argue about the grade of a particular move, we get to argue about the whole darn route.

For example, a route like Ankles Away at the Needles was originally graded 5.11c. That’s the grade of the crux move. No problem. Anyone can see the 100+ foot second pitch is steep thin fingers or tips all the way. If you could count on the crux move being 5.11c, and you had some depth climbing at that grade, you could decide that it looked enduro but that it was achievable.

 But now grades get tossed around for that route as high as 5.12b, which it is not, even counting for endurance. But what does our solid 5.11 climber think when they see a 5.12a grade?

The best solution, as I see it, is to be less specific. + or – vs a/b/c/d is one way to do it. My solution for Ankles Away is to simplify the problem even more. It’s just plain 5.11. IMO it’s not 5.12 even factoring endurance. An efficient climber who can place good thin gear easily is not going to be too stressed on this rig, but a strong but inefficient climber less well versed in placing pro could get smoked. So now we either adjust the grade for better or lesser climbers, or just keep it simple.

 

If we are just going to grade on the hardest move, shouldn’t we just go to the Vermin scale? Something like Astroman can just be V3, while Free Rider can come in at V7. If we want to keep it “old-school,” we can use the “B” scale. Hence, Astroman is B0, and Dawn Wall would be B2. I suppose that Silence and Bibliographie could be B3? Actually, not B3. Because the cruxes are easier than V17, they’d get at most B2. 

The idea that continuousness doesn't contribute to difficulty makes no sense to me, and I think the hardest-move approach to grading just plain doesn't work.  A pitch with an unrelenting series of 5.X moves with no rest can't possibly be the same "difficulty" as pitch with a single 5.X move.  The only system that confronts this issue is the British system, which has an overall adjectival grade as well as a grade for the hardest move.  The adjectival grade considers both the continuity of the moves and the availability of the protection, which is unfortunate because then we don't know which of these items is influencing the grading,  But the idea makes tons of sense; in a way it grades the climber's ability, since almost everyone can climb harder when it is well-protected and not so hard when it is poorly protected.  Within reason, both of those circumstances would get the same E-grade but a different move-difficulty grade.

The real reason grading often seems so inconsistent is the failure of guidebook authors to actually embrace the Tahquitz system, which had not only grades but also example climbs which established the difficulty level for the grade.  With standards in place, new routes could be compared to the existing standards and far more consistent choices would result.  There would even be the possibility, now totally beyond reason, of normalizing grades between different areas by comparing the relatively small sets of standard climbs.

None of this is going to happen of course, and we'll just muddle on.

rgold wrote:

The idea that continuousness doesn't contribute to difficulty makes no sense to me, and I think the hardest-move approach to grading just plain doesn't work. 

Didn't Yaniro say, "“If you can’t do the moves, you have nothing to endure"?

I for sure have found that to be true...ha ha.

I think a lot of the extended roof hard climbs have to consider how continuous the difficulty is...Pipedream at Maple, some of the big, overhanging routes at Grande Grotta on Kalymnos.  Not that I'd know, but I'd think that contributes to the difficulty rating.

rgold wrote:

The idea that continuousness doesn't contribute to difficulty makes no sense to me, and I think the hardest-move approach to grading just plain doesn't work.  A pitch with an unrelenting series of 5.X moves with no rest can't possibly be the same "difficulty" as pitch with a single 5.X move.  The only system that confronts this issue is the British system, which has an overall adjectival grade as well as a grade for the hardest move.  The adjectival grade considers both the continuity of the moves and the availability of the protection, which is unfortunate because then we don't know which of these items is influencing the grading,  But the idea makes tons of sense; in a way it grades the climber's ability, since almost everyone can climb harder when it is well-protected and not so hard when it is poorly protected.  Within reason, both of those circumstances would get the same E-grade but a different move-difficulty grade.

The real reason grading often seems so inconsistent is the failure of guidebook authors to actually embrace the Tahquitz system, which had not only grades but also example climbs which established the difficulty level for the grade.  With standards in place, new routes could be compared to the existing standards and far more consistent choices would result.  There would even be the possibility, now totally beyond reason, of normalizing grades between different areas by comparing the relatively small sets of standard climbs.

None of this is going to happen of course, and we'll just muddle on.

I wasn't really trying to argue that this should be the case. I was just trying to look at how it devolved by being used in different ways. I do think that in the case of some routes just being less specific is best.

Identifying certain routes as the standard for the grade (Open Book at Tahquitz) is easier to do when the climbing area is more or less homogeneous. The more varied an area is, the idea that one climb can define any particular grade goes out the window, and a local climber's consensus (i.e. arguments around the fire) becomes the rule. 

Muddling on isn't really so bad. It gives us material to "discuss" at the campfire. Or at the virtual fire as the case may be.

My wife was drawn away from climbing to take up competitive power lifting. One of the things she likes about lifting is that 280 pounds is exactly that, no more, no less. The methods by which we grade our climbs drives her nuts   . 

rgold wrote:

The real reason grading often seems so inconsistent is the failure of guidebook authors to actually embrace the Tahquitz system, which had not only grades but also example climbs which established the difficulty level for the grade.  With standards in place, new routes could be compared to the existing standards and far more consistent choices would result.  There would even be the possibility, now totally beyond reason, of normalizing grades between different areas by comparing the relatively small sets of standard climbs.

There's also the small detail that the original Tahquitz  system (YDS) ends at 5.9. Open Book is both much more intimidating than the "average" 5.9 as well as well below the level of so much of what is climbed these days. It's pretty much an "average" 3 pitch dihedral climb with a run out boulder problem start, a giant "elephant ear," 60'-70 feet of offwidth and then some nice hand jams and stemming. All 5.9s should be just like that!

The original 5.1, Fingertip traverse, has a section with you delicately balancing along a 300 foot exposure that is absolutely butt-puckering for a lot of folks. It's also currently rated a 5.4 because it requires a pretty heady slab exit.

The routes on the North Face of Strawberry peak that were put up by John and Ruth Mendenhall are interesting examples of rating routes.  Strawberry Roan and other routes they did are rated between 5.0 and 5.2 but all are in the 5.8 to 5.10 range.  I really think folks were just winging it back then.  

Todd Berlier wrote:

 My understanding is that the area is somewhat manufactured from mining for gold by blasting water along the rock to remove the earth. 

Those water blasted boulders are so bizarre!  I got the gold mining bug for a few years and we saw those on one trip to that area.  Spent some time in the various rivers up there gold panning.  It's fun but rather back breaking.

In poison oak land I find a bathroom to wash any exposed skin really thoroughly and thankfully there is a bathroom in the parking lot.

I am also deathly allergic to poison oak and there is a shit-ton of it in the eastern Sierra gold country. If you're looking for placer gold, that's found in the rivers and creeks, so of course it grows abundant poison oak right on the banks and approaches.  

Sounds like a good day despite the car keys misadventure!  Thanks for posting.

Todd Berlier wrote:

...so the next day I had to explain blisters on my penis to my wife :)

That's just about the best PO story I've heard. Classic.

Talk of poison oak in and around my other favorite place... Folsom Lake, the American Rivers.  How is it I lived and hiked there for so many years and never got it?  I have rumbled around in bushes and briars so many times and wondered if I was walking through poison oak.  Gosh I miss that lake where I spent so many many days, even in rainstorms in winter... certainly long days in summer.  My office got wise when I would tell them I was going to 'a business meeting' and they would find evidence that I had launched my raft out in the water and was cogitating there.  It was the only place I could find my sanity.  

The very first thing we did when we moved to Auburn area was grab gold pans and give it a go.  I lost that interest quickly.  

Thinking about numbers and grades... it was frustrating trying to teach Tony about climbing grades, even when he would accompany me to the climbing gym when I was working out with Ryan.  He thought the grades were all in my head.  He thought the only thing stopping me from a 5.11 was that I had viewed the number and got psyched out.  I told him to try it his own damn self before judging...   

But now he fully gets it, and in fact, we rate everything by the climbing system.  If some task is hard to impossible to do, he'll call it a 5.12.  

I really cannot comment on how accurate grades are from place to place.  What I can say is that here, in Joshua Tree, I sadly have to agree with the ratings nearly always. There is an intuitive sense of the bar.  Grades here are a good marker for me... I WANT to climb a 10c/d... I'd like to be that strong.  But it's just a notch above me and I get shut out.  Occasionally I get a happy surprise.  But I think the community here is pretty right on.  There are no freebies.

Helen... when I  posted the video of the guy on The Flake... it wasn't to consider whether it is better to watch your kid/partner fall to his death. (I vote 'NO').  Just that we see antics like this all the time on that particular rock... not unusual to see someone climbing naked, or in some kind of speedo...a good friend fell of the Left Ski Track, soloing, and broke his ribs.   I don't know why this rock brings out the freak flag in so many.  And, as for grading, that that particular route is a 5.8.  I don't think it's the slab part that's the 5.8, but the lower half involving a chimney.  I just remember watching that video 3 years ago and thinking, who the hell can climb something that steep.  And now, that one would likely be pretty easy for me. 

Someone here got me gazing at pics from Utah.  Moab.  What beautiful, haunting splitters and rock.  653 miles from my house.  I don't know when, but I have  to go one day.  

You should go to Moab.

Lori Milas wrote:

Helen... when I  posted the video of the guy on The Flake... it wasn't to consider whether it is better to watch your kid/partner fall to his death. (I vote 'NO').  Just that we see antics like this all the time on that particular rock... not unusual to see someone climbing naked, or in some kind of speedo...a good friend fell of the Left Ski Track, soloing, and broke his ribs.   I don't know why this rock brings out the freak flag in so many.  And, as for grading, that that particular route is a 5.8.  I don't think it's the slab part that's the 5.8, but the lower half involving a chimney.  I just remember watching that video 3 years ago and thinking, who the hell can climb something that steep.  And now, that one would likely be pretty easy for me. 

Hidden Valley CG has always been the scene for stuff like this, and Intersection Rock is the obvious target. Three decades ago (when you could still get a campsite in HV if you showed up on a Friday night), there was a guy who roamed the campground in the early morning when everyone was just getting out of their tents for the day to get started. He would climb up to the base of the Geronimo Crack (on the Old Woman), then proceed to howl like a dog for a few minutes to make sure he got everyone's attention, and then solo Geronimo. Had "what a douche" been part of the lexicon at the time, that would have perfectly fit what I thought about that guy and his moving spray show. 

The real point is, that the whole "look at me" soloing thing has been around forever. And probably not going anywhere soon.  LOL.

Someone here got me gazing at pics from Utah.  Moab.  What beautiful, haunting splitters and rock.  653 miles from my house.  I don't know when, but I have  to go one day.  

You and everyone else. Have you seen the photos of miles of cars backed up trying to get into Moab? It looks just like Park Boulevard headed into the NW entrance of JTNP.  SO many people.

I really have to look away when other people are soloing. It's me, not them, I know. But one reason I'm not super thrilled to hang out around HVCG in J-tree is all the aspirational soloing that goes on. It's a wonder there aren't more bodies laying around.