New and Experienced Climbers over 50 #34

Alan Rubin wrote:

. . .  cold reality is that we do need a military with state-of-the-'art' equipment in order to survive in what is, and always has been, a very dangerous world. I wish it were otherwise but, sadly, it isn't and there are absolutely no signs that this will change in the foreseeable future.

How true. When I served at Glasgow AFB in the early 1960s every twelve hours one of our B-52s, loaded with nuclear weapons, would take off for a round trip to the Soviet border in the sky. We were much closer to a nuclear confrontation than now, but America must always be prepared. 

I said I would not indulge in current political drama, but I will say that the Democrats did exceedingly well in choosing Sen Slotkin to present their arguments countering the President's speech. An impressive background and a calm but deliberate message to the American people. No shouting or raving or castigating the opponent's supporters from this good senator. 

Back to climbing, I recently did a short interview for a writer concerning my old B-system and modern scales of difficulty. One of his questions was about the finer and finer subdivisions of the Yosemite decimal system (and others). 5.10a, 5.10b, 5.10c, and 5.10d . . . . . Really? I can recall trying to understand 5.9 vs 5.10 BITD.  What do those on this thread think?

Tell Jason bouldering is not real climbing.

Idaho Bob wrote:

Isn't there something else that society should focus on other than engineering and building better weapons?  I worked for a company that was a sub-contractor on the Saturn project.  All of us young tech types were all in.  The next contract was for fuses for napalm bombs.  Virtually all of the young tech staff resigned.  I was one of those who joined a medical technology company, stayed for 30 years, and worked on projects to help people lead more healthy lives.  What you choose to do is important, working for the defense sector is, IMHO, both immoral and unethical. 

Agree, I’m working up in Sunnyvale where it’s sort of “not military”.

However, we need to improve our defense to maintain parity. That’s key to having leverage during negotiations.

I’m not going to get into geopolitics, but will say that having many family and friends living in so called totalitarian regimes gives me a slightly different perspective than others.

I really don't get why boulders need a different grading system. You just assume it's a difficulty grade vs an endurance grade and call it what it is. On the other hand it takes less words to describe a one move wonder climb if you simply give that move a V grade . But at the end of the day that climb still gets A decimal grade and has one hard move at that grade. 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

I really don't get why boulders need a different grading system. You just assume it's a difficulty grade vs an endurance grade and call it what it is. On the other hand it takes less words to describe a one move wonder climb if you simply give that move a V grade . But at the end of the day that climb still gets A decimal grade and has one hard move at that grade. 

Grades on sport climbs tend to be softer than boulders. A 8a or 5.13a/b sport climb may be a bunch of linked together V4 movements which are very roughly in the high 5.11s or low 5.12s. crux moves. But not definitively.

A grade for a sport route grade is based upon power plus link ups with endurance and/or power-endurance. The overall grade is variable and can be separate from the crux move(s) difficulty.

That’s why when you hang dog a route, the moves are much easier. The link up of easier movements is what makes the climb more difficult, and you’ve defeated the intention of the grade of the climb.

Short powerful moves, can’t be protected by endurance. So, boulders  are pure difficulty. It’s like  Power and skill wrapped up in a few movements. A V6 is a V6 movement. It’s easier to grade based upon the raw movements.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

I really don't get why boulders need a different grading system. You just assume it's a difficulty grade vs an endurance grade and call it what it is. On the other hand it takes less words to describe a one move wonder climb if you simply give that move a V grade . But at the end of the day that climb still gets A decimal grade and has one hard move at that grade. 

And the systems kind of cross over when you have, for instance, 5.8 climbing to a three move crux roof that gets the grade of 5.12a, or a thirty move boulder problem with no stopper moves that gets V4.

so why cant you just say climb the 5.8 face to the 5.12 bouldery roof? its all just climbing. 

From someone who started climbing in the vicinity of Hueco before the V scale was really a thing, and mostly bouldered and climbed on gear before switching to mostly sport climbing, the adoption of a separate bouldering scale made grades much easier to relate to. 

Frank Stein wrote:

From someone who started climbing in the vicinity of Hueco before the V scale was really a thing, and mostly bouldered and climbed on gear before switching to mostly sport climbing, the adoption of a separate bouldering scale made grades much easier to relate to. 

There already was one 

B1, B2 and B3, I think there is a guy on this thread who can elaborate

That scale was fine for a guy who was merely competing with himself. It made perfect sense. But that measuring stick did not offer fine enough gradations for competition with other climbers. We had to allow ever-finer slices of difficulty and therefore ever finer means of distinguishing climber capability.

The rating scale rates the person, not the rock.

I am a 5.(whatever) climber.

See what I mean?

John Gill wrote:

Back to climbing, I recently did a short interview for a writer concerning my old B-system and modern scales of difficulty. One of his questions was about the finer and finer subdivisions of the Yosemite decimal system (and others). 5.10a, 5.10b, 5.10c, and 5.10d . . . . . Really? I can recall trying to understand 5.9 vs 5.10 BITD.  What do those on this thread think?

BITD you were climbing V9 which Darth Grader* tells me is the equivalent of a 13c. Ask most 5.13+ climbers today and they’d likely struggle to differentiate between a 5.9 and a 5.10b (of similar style, not egregiously mis-graded). Ask a 5.10c climber and they will probably be pretty clear that 5.9 and 5.10b are quite different levels of difficulty.

*those wanting to convert boulder to route grades or vice versa need look no further. 

As I age it seems my grading system is starting to deteriorate into: easy, hard, impossible.

I actually have a [continually growing] 40-some page bucket list of climbs and climbing areas in the USA and around the world. Grades range from 5.0 to about 5.10a/b. I get a lot of solace from the fact that MANY fantastic routes worldwide are no harder than 5.6. Here’s to many more years of movement over rock!

oldfattradguuy kk wrote:

There already was one 

B1, B2 and B3, I think there is a guy on this thread who can elaborate

I remember the B scale, and in retrospect I’m nostalgically fond of it, but it wasn’t terribly useful. Basically:

B1=hardest moves ever done on a rope

B2=harder than anything done on a rope, but repeated

B3=unrepeated and at a cutting edge standard

We added B0 to cover anything which at that time would be easier than V7, or so at that time (late ‘80s)  Today, a B0 would be about V13, or so, as Silence has a V14 Boulder problem.

I never did manage to climb a B1

John Gill wrote:

How true. When I served at Glasgow AFB in the early 1960s every twelve hours one of our B-52s, loaded with nuclear weapons, would take off for a round trip to the Soviet border in the sky. We were much closer to a nuclear confrontation than now, but America must always be prepared. 

I said I would not indulge in current political drama, but I will say that the Democrats did exceedingly well in choosing Sen Slotkin to present their arguments countering the President's speech. An impressive background and a calm but deliberate message to the American people. No shouting or raving or castigating the opponent's supporters from this good senator. 

Back to climbing, I recently did a short interview for a writer concerning my old B-system and modern scales of difficulty. One of his questions was about the finer and finer subdivisions of the Yosemite decimal system (and others). 5.10a, 5.10b, 5.10c, and 5.10d . . . . . Really? I can recall trying to understand 5.9 vs 5.10 BITD.  What do those on this thread think?

Me somewhere back east 1960s.

Tell Jason bouldering is not real climbing.

Looks like The Gunks!  Carriage road, maybe somewhere around the Horseman roof?  Dunno.  I'm not good at recognizing routes.  Maybe RG knows.

Speaking of people who can actually speak coherently, I watched as much as I could tolerate (3+ hours out of over 6) of the grilling of four "sanctuary city" mayors (NYC, Chicago, Boston, Denver).  Of course it was a sh!t show, but the mayors did amazingly well.  Denver and Boston (woo!) especially, I thought.  I was also impressed at just what an ass Congresswoman Nancy Mace from SC was.  Wow.  I guess that's what her constituents want?  Sad.

I'm taking a little break from climbing until the outdoor season gets close again.  Take a little time to let all the little finger issues heal.  Instead I'm doing my early spring "cross training" which involves hauling many five gallon buckets of sap around steep snowy woods.   youtu.be/e4qZ3vLGDW4?si=uWy…

Yay maple season!

GO

Yes, Gabe, you are correct as to the location. I believe that is, not coincidentally!!!, the Gill Problem under the far left side of the Doug's Roof area.

Alan Rubin wrote:

Yes, Gabe, you are correct as to the location. I believe that is, not coincidentally!!!, the Gill Problem under the far left side of the Doug's Roof area.

Okay I'm going to cheat now. The Ivan Greene guidebook seems to say that it's a problem called Larson's Leap (V1). But I've never done any of those problems, so i could be wrong. 

GO

GabeO wrote:

Okay I'm going to cheat now. The Ivan Greene guidebook seems to say that it's a problem called Larson's Leap (V1). But I've never done any of those problems, so i could be wrong. 

GO

Could be, but looks like Gill Double Clutch (V4) which I did before pads a long time ago.

Ward Smith wrote:

Could be, but looks like Gill Double Clutch (V4) which I did before pads a long time ago.

Gill’s Double Clutch

I think it is was listed in the old Dick Williams Near Trapps and Millbrook 1992 Guidebook as a 5.12a R climb.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

so why cant you just say climb the 5.8 face to the 5.12 bouldery roof? its all just climbing. 

Easier to understand the grade?   

Kidding, yes, a single grade doesn’t really tell the entire story, I agree.

but the 5.8 with a single 5.12a move is 5.12a

If it were sustained 5.11d to 5.12a moves that are linked together, it may boost the grade to a 5.12b or c?

Bob Gaines wrote:

Gill’s Double Clutch

I think it is was listed in the old Dick Williams Near Trapps and Millbrook 1992 Guidebook as a 5.12a R climb.

Close... it was Dick Williams The Trapps guidebook from 1991

Only the first one was listed in Dick Williams Shawangunk Rock Climbs from 1972 (and the follow up edition in 1980)

What's the point of having millions of guidebooks if you can't do research?

Frank Stein wrote:

I remember the B scale, and in retrospect I’m nostalgically fond of it, but it wasn’t terribly useful. 

No, but it worked for the very few of us who took bouldering seriously then. In the late 1950s when I was exploring ways to make bouldering a legitimate activity I first thought of a simple scale, B1, B2, B3, B4,... but decided that would immediately lead to number chasing, so I decided to try out a categorization approach rather than a scale. Short sighted of me. Sherman came along and corrected my mistake. 

Speaking of the Verm, he now lives in Kentucky and is engaged to a lady who lives on a horse farm. At age 66 (spring chicken to me) he has decided to leave Midnight Lightning behind after several good attempts, but hopes to get back into climbing soon, having had a health problem stemming from his pursuit of the sport.