Nate D wrote:Yes, most likely true - and if you think about it, either way, the route designation would probably be the same. Especially seeing as the "danger" aspect corresponds to the grade of the climb. 5.6 R is "dangerous" for a 5.6 leader. 5.9 with a 5.6 runout section is not really "dangerous" to a 5.9 leader. But what do I know?
Maybe you can share some specific examples where the overall danger qualified an R rating, but the crux moves were all well protected. I'm sure Tuolumne has many (and unfortunately, I have yet to climb there).
Probably no real hard and fast rules, which is why gaining consensus is important in my book.
Nate... I sort of look at the entire climb and sort out the danger factor.
Things I consider are, rock quality, the protection, steepness and objective hazards, like chopper flakes.
So a 5.6 R may be because of loose rock.
5.6 R could be because if you fell right at that
spot you would chop your balls on that flake
So I guess I see danger as how easy to get hurt/killed doing this?
When I rate something I think this way.
Some well protected climbs with a R rating, with well protected cruxes:. "Carson Kodas Arete" at Courtwright and the "Hobbit Book" in TM and "A Good Day To Die" in JT and "EBGB's" in JT.
I agree 100% - no real hard and fast rules
I guess it's like porn..... hard to describe but I know it when I see it.....