Welle.......

Sounds like she was jealous of your technical skills.

some folks kan't help themselves, their mouth just starts up while the brain is stopped.

I love the climbing beta given by a 6"4" climber to a 5"3" climber.

I just love the Gunks..... best place in the world to see many "climbing styles in action" all right next to each other.

got any pics???

Guyzo wrote:Welle.......


I love the climbing beta given by a 6"4" climber to a 5"3" climber.

One of my beefs is when someone who has seven inches more reach than I do tells me "oh, I just used that hold" when I have to find an intermediate move to be able to even touch the hold, let alone use it. I always learn more by watching someone around the my height climb versus a taller climber.

Other useless beta: watching a guy try to tell his girlfriend how to climb a route. . .

lisae wrote:Other useless beta: watching a guy try to tell his girlfriend how to climb a route. . .

True enuf....


I love it when the beta starts flying in from 5 - 6 or more sources.....

Betaoverload.


But really..... Good beta, given by a person who knows your climbing strengths/weakness can really help ya get that "flash" .........

ooo, but we shorties have an advantage in one area - roofs!

Guyzo, here is a photo of myself climbing in Uberfall area a month ago:

Guyzo wrote:

lisae wrote:Other useless beta: watching a guy try to tell his girlfriend how to climb a route. . .

True enuf....


I love it when the beta starts flying in from 5 - 6 or more sources.....

Betaoverload.


But really..... Good beta, given by a person who knows your climbing strengths/weakness can really help ya get that "flash" .........

Problem is that many people can't really evaluate strengths/weakness, they just know what works for them.

I think I have learned more from watching other people than from getting beta, especially nowadays as my hip flexibility is a bit limited. I watch to see where other people do high step and try to see a way to move around the high step or if I can smear. In general, I love watching folks who have been climbing for a long time and have learned how to efficient in their climbing.

lisae wrote:Other useless beta: watching a guy try to tell his girlfriend how to climb a route. . .

Some of the most painful situations I've had the displeasure of experiencing had to do with spraylord guys dragging their SO up something they weren't really ready for....

welle wrote:Guyzo, here is a photo of myself climbing in Uberfall area a month ago:

Is that Horseman?

it is.....

welle wrote:Guyzo, here is a photo of myself climbing in Uberfall area a month ago:

That looks way fun -

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/new_yo ... /105799721

But 5.5 ?? Man, that looks like a serious sandbag Any bets on what it would be rated if that were in the Pinnacles or Yosemite ?? My guess is more like 5.7 - 5.8.

rhyang wrote:But 5.5 ?? Man, that looks like a serious sandbag Any bets on what it would be rated if that were in the Pinnacles or Yosemite ?? My guess is more like 5.7 - 5.8.

Not a sandbag Rob. It is the Eastcoast and these routes have been in place for well over 4 decades and longer. That was the standard.

5.7/5.8's back there will make the modern day Westcoast moderate shit their pants making the first move off the deck. Seriously!

Modern day inflation, the Gym etc have changed/softened the modern day ratings IMO.

The horizontials are pretty big and pretty nice.

For me (having climbed there 12 years before moving west), as long as you get used to the style (which is different) things (ratings) are about the same (assuming you aren't using the softer scale ratings such as the Pinnacles).

I would say that a 5.9 such as Apoplexy (which is just to the right of Horseman in the picture) and Crescent Arch on Daff Dome would be equivelent (or I'd put Crescent Arch as even more difficult), but the styles are completely different. (Ok, Crescent Arch should be more difficult since in reality its 5.9/5.9+)

Now the Gunks are a good place to practiceclimbing above gear placements since the rock dictates where you can place stuff (since a lot of it is going in horizontial cracks) instead of a usual plug and chug.


And Chief, my climbing partner and I talked about this recently. In the lower grades some of it has to do with climbing gyms and the desire of climbing gym owners wanting their customers to feel good. I think some of it at the higher grades has to do with "professional" climbers padding their resume. I saw a resume of a TNF athlete who put "Disco Machine Gun" as 5.12d but come'on, its really right around 5.12b. Great line but sort of padding. I've seen a lot of other climbs (many at the Creek) such as "Learning to Fly" which shows up on many resumes as 5.13d but consensus has it as 5.13 (I won't say since I am really shitty with grading routes so I don't, or if I do, its more conservative).

CClaude wrote:I would say that a 5.9 such as Apoplexy (which is just to the right of Horseman in the picture) and Crescent Arch on Daff Dome would be equivelent (or I'd put Crescent Arch as even more difficult).

R U aware that when Kor and Becky put that up back in '65, they used Aid and originally rated it at 5.8 A1????

Then look who in fact FFA'd it. One of the Great Masters. Even his routes are to this day claimed as major Sandbags.... Kamps.

Originally rated at .9+ it has been upgraded in some GB's to .10b and some were insisting that it be given the .10d slot.

The Chief wrote:

CClaude wrote:I would say that a 5.9 such as Apoplexy (which is just to the right of Horseman in the picture) and Crescent Arch on Daff Dome would be equivelent (or I'd put Crescent Arch as even more difficult).

R U aware that when Kor and Becky put that up back in '65, they used Aid and originally rated it at 5.8 A1????

Then look who in fact FFA'd it. One of the Great Masters. Even his routes are to this day claimed as major Sandbags.... Kamps.

Originally rated at .9+ it has been upgraded in some GB's to .10b and some were insisting that it be given the .10d slot.

Totally respect Kamps, balls of (hmmm... whats harder then steel). I'd give it (CA) the 5.9+ that its been given. Now the thing up the slab to its right with 3 bolts in the many pitches I won't touch and that is suppose to be 5.9 ..... When I moved to the West Coast I was doing 5.10X routes, and I wouldn't touch that thing, and 14 years later I still won't.

As CClaude said, if you climb in the Gunks a lot, you get used to the style and ratings. Lots of jugs and good feet. I'd say Horseman feels like a .4 if you don't get sketched out on the traverse, but there is also a direct variation which is a .6. Gunks is known for impressive roofs on moderates that look impossible from the ground, but most have weaknesses that are easy if you don't mind some air under your feet. I also think visiting climbers get psyched out because you have to climb way above the protection on cruxes.