How low grade-wise does the appetite for sport climbing go?

Tbf Connor, I wasn’t replying to your post, but the one after it that was worded more strongly in absolute terms. I actually agree that a strong climber with lots of developing experience who is thoughtful about bolting 5.easy is at least as likely to do a good job as a brand new developer with little climbing skill or experience. I did find it funny to use 5.11 as an example of an easy climb even in relative terms, but I get what you were trying to say. No strong feelings about it, just not the example I would have used, Btw I generally enjoy reading your takes in the forums and often agree with them.

I wasn’t even trying to lay into the other dude too hard, just prodding at what I perceived to be a bit of ego in so confidently deriding 5.11 with outdated gender connotations. I intended it to be gentle pushback directed at the comment, not a harsh callout directed at the person.

Christian Rock wrote:

See ya, AI bot

Collin H wrote:

Tbf Connor, I wasn’t replying to your post, but the one after it that was worded more strongly in absolute terms. I actually agree that a strong climber with lots of developing experience who is thoughtful about bolting 5.easy is at least as likely to do a good job as a brand new developer with little climbing skill or experience. I did find it funny to use 5.11 as an example of an easy climb even in relative terms, but I get what you were trying to say. No strong feelings about it, just not the example I would have used, Btw I generally enjoy reading your takes in the forums and often agree with them.

I wasn’t even trying to lay into the other dude too hard, just prodding at what I perceived to be a bit of ego in so confidently deriding 5.11 with outdated gender connotations. I intended it to be gentle pushback directed at the comment, not a harsh callout directed at the person.

Yeah understandable and I think I was also a little upset from some outside stressors. I probably could have elaborated more in my original comment. 

I only used that example just because I don't climb much <5.9 on a regular basis, and if I do it is a mindless warm up where I don't care about quality, whereas 5.11 for me can be super high quality.  I just know of a strong developer who put up some stellar 5.11s whereas I don't know the developer of a lot of the easier stuff I have done regardless of quality. 

Connor Dobson wrote:

Yeah understandable and I think I was also a little upset from some outside stressors. I probably could have elaborated more in my original comment. 

I only used that example just because I don't climb much <5.9 on a regular basis, and if I do it is a mindless warm up where I don't care about quality, whereas 5.11 for me can be super high quality.  I just know of a strong developer who put up some stellar 5.11s whereas I don't know the developer of a lot of the easier stuff I have done regardless of quality. 

No harm no foul, certainly plenty of outside stressors to go around these days! We can’t all be so lucky as to have the large selection of 5.easy in our tick list that I do. But if you asked me to give examples of quality 5.11s…

That actually raises another question: What about climbers developing above their ability level? Adam Ondra complimented the unclimbed lines bolted by Alan Watts, calling them futuristic and visionary if I remember right. I’ve definitely heard other examples of climbers developing routes they can’t climb. I think I remember a Reel Rock a while back about a guy who bolted some hard multipitch beyond his climbing ability somewhere in the Middle East.

How common is this? Is this typically the result of a developer underestimating the difficulty of a climb with the hope that they will be able to send it, or do some people have an eye for inspiring hard climbs and develop them just for others to try? How does this affect the quality of the resulting routes? Do some people have very high ability to read the rock that is independent of their ability to pull the moves, or are the two pretty tightly linked?

Note: I don’t develop and I’m certainly not suggesting that 5.easy climbers should bolt 5.12s, just curious about existing practices.

Collin H wrote:

What about climbers developing above their ability level?

How common is this? Is this typically the result of a developer underestimating the difficulty of a climb with the hope that they will be able to send it, or do some people have an eye for inspiring hard climbs and develop them just for others to try? How does this affect the quality of the resulting routes? Do some people have very high ability to read the rock that is independent of their ability to pull the moves, or are the two pretty tightly linked?

I have recently been developing a few more routes at my limit, the kind that push me to have to project a bit to eventually get the send.  I think that at least within a few letter grades of my limit or on certain types of rock with the kinds of features and movement I am naturally better at, I have an experienced enough climber-eye to be able to imagine how a line could be climbed, even if I am not currently able to do so myself.  In theory, that means I could probably design a doable route above my max difficulty.  HOWEVER, I would never trust myself to make the best micro-routing and micro-siting decisions about bolt placement without significant feedback and adjustment from someone climbing at that level.  Even if it is possible in theory for a well-seasoned climber and route developer to bolt a good line above their pay grade, I would never want to deliberately seek out that situation.

For one thing, I doubt it would be as motivating.  I like to climb the routes I work on.  In the cases where I have put up a route that I can't do myself, it has been a result of 1) collaborating with a partner who is stronger and can do it, and/or 2) sussing out terrain that I knew would be a stretch for me but that seemed worthy, and then finding out the crux move is a bit beyond me (for now).  I like my route development partners enough that I would happily be wing-person for one of their pet projects, and certainly they have been patient about being dragged along to obscure bits of rock that I have wanted to check out, so I owe them.  But I bet if any of us were a big mismatch in terms of ability or style, we would naturally gravitate towards working alone or with different, better-matched partners over time.

In that zone that is close to my limit but eventually achievable, being the route developer has been good for me.  For one thing, scouting and planning out the route is a lot like projecting it, and by the time it's ready for a clean lead attempt, I often have the overall progression and the sequences memorized.  For someone who usually does mostly onsighting and generally seeks out novel terrain on my cragging days, this has been good for me.  And I find myself trusting my own hardware the most of all, since I literally JUST put it all in and know all the invisible stuff about the rock it's in, the way it tightened up to torque, the experience and judgment of the person who placed it, etc.  I am able to maintain a better lead head FAing my own lines.

The thing I'd be most worried about when planning and bolting terrain much more than a few letters above my usual max (where I could, say, hold on to the moves but not link them and could barely think about freeing up a hand to make a clip) is that I would not be able to think as strategically about the bolt placements.  What would it feel like to be on lead and making this clip here?  I would be able to imagine it, perhaps, but I wouldn't really know.

Collin H wrote:

That actually raises another question: What about climbers developing above their ability level? Adam Ondra complimented the unclimbed lines bolted by Alan Watts, calling them futuristic and visionary if I remember right. I’ve definitely heard other examples of climbers developing routes they can’t climb. ...

How common is this? Is this typically the result of a developer underestimating the difficulty of a climb with the hope that they will be able to send it, or do some people have an eye for inspiring hard climbs and develop them just for others to try? How does this affect the quality of the resulting routes? Do some people have very high ability to read the rock that is independent of their ability to pull the moves, or are the two pretty tightly linked?

It is very common and has been a major part of cutting edge sport climbing. Lots of examples of a top climber finding a next-level line that is a bit too hard for them, and handing it off to the next generation (or some string visiting Euro).

Alan Watts bolting To Bolt Or Not To Be, Just Do It (both FA'd by JB Tribout) and numerous other lines.

Boone Speed bolting Necessary Evil and handing it to Sharma.

Randy Leavitt bolting Jumbo Love and handing it to Sharma

Numerous Red River Gorge examples - hard routes bolted by locals and later climbed by visiting pros. Including the 5.15+ project at the Chocolate Factory that Megos has been trying.

Ethan Pringle bolting Bibliographie, later climbed by Megos.

Etc...

In most of these cases the routes were too hard for the bolter, but not extremely so. Often just a couple letter grades. The bolters in these examples are all good climbers and experienced developers, so they could envision the lines well enough to do a good job finding the line and bolt positions.  

This also scales at lower grades. A 12a climber can probably do a decent job of figuring out and bolting a 12d route, even if they can't send it. Getting the route "right" on a potential 14a might be harder for them. Though some lines are just more obvious than others, and might be easier for anyone to envision as a potential route.

Also worth noting that the original developer doesn't always get it exactly right the first try, regardless of how hard they climb. Bolts can be added/removed/moved. This is ok.

I help other, stronger developers not infrequently. I redpoint 5.10- and can help figure out bolt placements based on movement up to 5.10d. beyond that I just help examine the rock quality and help put in the bolts at the locations the other developers decided on. I don't think it's possible to do a good job bolting a route where you can't pull a lot of the individual moves at all, but if you can pull most of the individual moves but can't link them much I think you could develop it fine. 

Collin H wrote:

What about climbers developing above their ability level?

How common is this? Is this typically the result of a developer underestimating the difficulty of a climb with the hope that they will be able to send it, or do some people have an eye for inspiring hard climbs and develop them just for others to try? How does this affect the quality of the resulting routes? Do some people have very high ability to read the rock that is independent of their ability to pull the moves, or are the two pretty tightly linked?

I've done this at least once, and it's turned out well. The way I approach development is to take several laps on TR solo, working the moves, cleaning on the way down, and only adding bolts I'm pretty sure will work on lead. Climb a sequence, scan the fall line, make chalk dots where I think I'd be able to clip, repeat. If I can't hang-dog the moves on one section, I leave it unbolted and call in the professionals. 

In the one case of a one sport route I established and knew I couldn't send, a stronger friend played around on it, completed the bolting, and sent it. I knew it'd be a stellar line when I first rapped into it, and that it would be a shame to leave it red-tagged for god knows how long while I tried to get stronger. There's also a trad line that I know is good and safe because I've French-freed it a few times, and I'll be proud when a stronger friend gets the FFA on it.

Assessing difficulty from the ground is hard, especially when some of the features I'm eyeing will come off during cleaning. I'm rarely off by more than a number grade, but that's a big enough margin of error to potentially shut me down. Good news is that there's always someone stronger who's looking for a new project (or warm up).

Outside of wilderness areas, bad bolts are pretty easy to fix. I've probably moved/added a bolt or two on half the sport routes I've developed, usually once I've watched others climb them. A bolt that's safe with my beta might be sketchy with tall/smart people beta. Alternatively, I might Know a fall is safe because I spent so much time on the wall, but most would-be onsighters would hang or back off there. I can't tell you whether the latter is good or bad bolting, but I know what most folks would say these days. Gold standard for me is to belay someone I respect and ask them for feedback.

Collin H wrote:

No harm no foul, certainly plenty of outside stressors to go around these days! We can’t all be so lucky as to have the large selection of 5.easy in our tick list that I do. But if you asked me to give examples of quality 5.11s…

That actually raises another question: What about climbers developing above their ability level? Adam Ondra complimented the unclimbed lines bolted by Alan Watts, calling them futuristic and visionary if I remember right. I’ve definitely heard other examples of climbers developing routes they can’t climb. I think I remember a Reel Rock a while back about a guy who bolted some hard multipitch beyond his climbing ability somewhere in the Middle East.

How common is this? Is this typically the result of a developer underestimating the difficulty of a climb with the hope that they will be able to send it, or do some people have an eye for inspiring hard climbs and develop them just for others to try? How does this affect the quality of the resulting routes? Do some people have very high ability to read the rock that is independent of their ability to pull the moves, or are the two pretty tightly linked?

Note: I don’t develop and I’m certainly not suggesting that 5.easy climbers should bolt 5.12s, just curious about existing practices.

I think it depends on the style of route. Can the person bolting do all the moves and make links? Or is it very bouldery? 

For example I could probably do an okay job of bolting a 40m long 5.13+/5.14- despite not being close to sending it if the moves and sequences themselves are reasonable. It gets the grade because of how sustained it is. 

I probably could not know how reasonable or high quality a bouldery 5.14 with a v11+ boulder is. Even then maybe if the moves are fairly straightforward one could maybe see it (for example pockety routes in lander where I am not strong enough to pull the moves but could see the sequence).

As for how common it is, sometimes there is just a cool feature that you think would go and it ends up being a lot harder than you originally thought, or making the link is harder than originally thought (see my point above). Other times, especially on certain types of rock, it was easier or looked easier until you clean the choss off and then some of the holds disappear...

I usually try to TR routes before I bolt them because it makes it easier to gut check if the proposed bolt locations are in the right place and to feel our the sequence but even then it depends on the route. You aren't going to be doing a TR with no bolts in on something super overhung or super traversing, so sometimes you just have to bolt on lead. 

Thanks in large part to all of the feedback here, we managed to get the crag ready to go by the end of the month. There’s still another couple of potential routes that could go up, and it would really benefit from a trail day - but it’s open to the public! If you live around the front range and want to check it out, here’s the info: Wild Thing Wall

Tal M wrote:

Thanks in large part to all of the feedback here, we managed to get the crag ready to go by the end of the month. There’s still another couple of potential routes that could go up, and it would really benefit from a trail day - but it’s open to the public! If you live around the front range and want to check it out, here’s the info: Wild Thing Wall

Effin rad, dude. 

^^ I suspect there will be plenty of appetite for those sport climbs. 

Looks like a great cliff for that grade range. Especially since it is a full cliff within that range, with plenty of routes to fill a day.

Tal M wrote:

Thanks in large part to all of the feedback here, we managed to get the crag ready to go by the end of the month.

Looks great!

J L wrote:

5.0 could be a blocky staircase but still need a rope otherwise you'd die if you fell off for whatever reason.

That's just 4th class. Most legit 4th class would be fatal if you fall on it. 

Great work Tal! That's a pretty crag, and such a service.

It would take an act of Geology to get that kinda crag in my neighborhood, but that won't stop folks from lobbying. 

Cheers!

20 kN wrote:

That's just 4th class. Most legit 4th class would be fatal if you fall on it. 

The difference between 4th class and 5.easy has never been completely clear.

If you bolt it, they will come.