Grade Inflation?

[john]

Anyone think welsford are grades are inflating over the years?

Some routes that are hard by todays standards?
-waterfall layback 8+ orignially
-slippery when wet is solid
-847
-poche
-ziggy piggy
-lithium crystals
others?

[motanb]

I'd nominate "The Power of Oatmeal", 10c as a stiff grade. I say more in the soft 11 range.

[motanb]

just to add on my previous comment... John, you list ziggy as stiff for its grade...I'd have to disagree on that. I think the 10c grade is spot on for this particular route. But maybe its my distorted 6'4 perspective. Regardless, it's a very fine climb that does not receive as much attention as perhaps it warrants.

[Fred]

John is just bored at work and looking for a rise. Everyone who knows him can confirm that he can't tell the difference between 5.8 and 5.10. LOL

[STeveA]

I think Welsfords grades are good, but the grades in other areas are getting soft. This makes ours look hard. What we need to make sure of is consistancy. Other routes for discussion are Montezuma's Revenge and Tipsy.

[granite_grrl]

Remember, its better to climb someplace stiff, and then to travel and clean up at a new area than to climb at a soft are then travel and get spanked.

All soft grades do for you is inflate your 8a.nu score .

[martha]

I think Welsfords grades are good, but the grades in other areas are getting soft. This makes ours look hard. What we need to make sure of is consistancy. Other routes for discussion are Montezuma's Revenge and Tipsy.

Montezumas is hard for its grade. I think most agree it is more 12a ish. Though I find it easier than FareWell to Arms which is also 12a so maybe Montezumas is only a 11d?

Waterfall Layback is a hard route, but no more than 5.9. It is trad. and a different style than some are used to, but to onsight, I think a 5.9 grade is accurate. Poche had a discussion in another thread... what did we decide? 11b/c on onsight? I know it is easier than Montezumas but it is definately harder than some of the 11a's in the area.

I think that the Greenlaw routes are consistant to Welsford, but the difference being the style of climbing and the type of rock. We tried to compare them in difficulty to other routes we are familiar with when grading them.

[Graham]

I remember trying out waterfall layback last year and thinking that it was quite hard for a 5.9, I haven't been on it since so maybe I was having an off day. But I agree, it's much nicer to be used to climbing hard stuff here, then discovering that you moved up a grade when climbing elsewhere.

[PeterA]

Montezumas is hard for its grade. I think most agree it is more 12a ish. Though I find it easier than FareWell to Arms which is also 12a so maybe Montezumas is only a 11d?

I would say that montezumas is accurate at 11c. I found it much easier than farewell to arms, and it also took much less effort to redpoint. It is very sequency though, and I did find that when everything went right, it felt 11c, but if I leaned a little bit in the wrong direction, it would spit me off. but the difference between 11c and d is so small, and with grades being so subjective, it's hard to say for sure

-PJ

[STeveA]

In a time long, long ago, BF (Before Friends), we used to climb waterfall Layback using hexes to protect the crux. Now that we have friends and camelots etc the route is much harder. Used to be 5.8 (no +) but obviously it is much harder now.

[*Chris*]

I have not climbed in enough places to comment on whether or not Welsford grades are stiff... but it does occurs to me that the style of the route is a serious factor aside from grades. I have found climbing at other areas using other guidebooks that I consider more info than just the YDS grade before I decide how/if I'm approaching that route. Personally, since I feel there's way more to climbing than what I can onsight, I find the YDS system pretty lacking. I much prefer to know whether a route requires balance, whether it's sustained at the grade, whether it's a burley slog, or whether it's a tricky sequence of relatively simple moves. That kind of stuff can't always be scoped out from the ground so I always like guidebooks that give you that info along with the grade. I find I really need both pieces of info to have a good expectation of what I'm in for on the route (which I'd argue is the whole useful utility in grading).

I agree that waterfall layback has no technical moves harder than 5.8 or maybe 5.9 but to those who excel at face climbing it probably feels stiff. Let's just abandon the whole system and come up with our own elaborate scheme of color-coded tape

[STeveA]

Maybe we can get Andrew to put colored tape at the top and bottom of each route. Use the skiing colors; Green for easy, blue for intermediate and black for hard. (Sorry Andrew, but I could not resist).

[Fred]

LOL

I needed that good laugh.

[motanb]

I agree with PJ, Monty's is solid 11c. I generally will use Monty's as a benchmark hard 11 when I'm developing climbs of that difficulty or already on routes with that grade.

[martha]

I don't find Montezumas difficult as it is exactly my style of climbing. crimpy balancy face climbing. But the YDS is for ONSIGHT grades. Onsighting Montezumas would be a tough job. onsighting, no beta, no prior knowledge except what is in the guide and what you can see from the ground.

Once you know the sequence it is a walk. I find some other routes of easier grades to be harder because of a style of climbing that doesn't suit me as well.

I'm up for the taping system. so lets add to the green, blue and black by saying that stripes are a balancey route, dots are a 'burley' (no.. not as in Erick) route and that little stars are an awkward thrash.

[motanb]

sometimes i think we forget that 5.11c is SUPPOSED to be and feel hard...very hard; especially for an onsight.

[Matt Peck]

hehehe. Tape. BURN!
I gotta disagree with you Chris. While I do find some of the Welsford descriptions a little vague (or a lot), they mostly give me a decent idea of where to climb, and if I will feel somewhat safe on the route. When you look at a guidebook like the one for Acadia, sure it's a treat, but it practically climbs the routes for you. I prefer to preserve the sense of adventure that I think Fred was trying to achieve with the Welsford guides, and think that these are for the most part, adequate.
HOWEVER
That said, I do appreciate guidebook info that gives a hint to the style of climbing, the availibility of pro, and limited info on pro type. If you are going to be free soloing the route without that crucial #3 you left behind, I'd prefer to know ahead of time. Photo topos are also pretty choice, but Fred's renderings get the job done. The pioneering aspect to first ascents needs to be preserved.
I might take this moment to register my complaint, however whiny, about Save the Princesses. Sandbagging new leaders is an enjoyable pastime, but that route is just made for culling the allready slim new leader demographic. Damn you Fellows, Damn you to hell. heh. Hope the west is treating you well, buddy.

[Fred]

funny story about to Save The Princess... we were at Upper Tier last weekend and we met a Quebec couple. The guy's accent was as thick as can be so I immediately switched to French after he struggled on the first two words... he says... "how did you know I was French?".. A good laugh was had by all. So long story short I asked them what routes they had been climbing. He looked at me with the guidebook open and showed much confusion. He said... "We have been ticking the classics and came to do the best route in Welsford". We immediately started laughing and had to appologize for the prank route description.

On another note... the old guidebook had much information about what size cam, nut or even sling to use. In the latest guidebook I have tried to eliminate all hints of what gear to bring. I believe a standard rack will get you up all routes in New Brunswick. Saying what size to bring spoils the sense of adventure.

[*Chris*]

Yep...
... but I'm not complaining about the guidebook... The way I figure it is that there's a gradient that encompasses route descriptions going from extremely vague all the way to spelling out what sizes you'll need and where they're needed. Fred has found a comfortable place within that gradient and I understand the tradeoff between adventure and being well informed. My comment was actually directed at route difficulty (not protection availability or quality)... and I guess that overall, the YDS really does a mediocre job of telling me how hard a route is going to be. That is a personal observation of mine since onsighting is low on my list of climbing priorities.

[john]

I think guidebooks should let you find a route, and generally where it goes, not tell you details about it, other than maybe whether its worth doing or not. There is a skill involved in being able to asses for oneself the route from the bottom, rather than rely on someone else's opinion. I find this skill is the last skill to develop for most people, but it really helps make a solid leader.

Interestingly, someone at the gym the other nite, out of the blue said to me how happy they were to finally gain the confidence to walk up to a route and try to onsight it, ie. without the beta. They seemed to feel it was the next level for them. They we not a lot stronger than they had been previously, but the were more confident in their route assessment and personal abilities, regardless of their max ability. I thought that was really great for them.

cheers

[martha]

The only time I think that having gear information in a guidebook is valid is if it is on a mixed route that has only one or two pieces. a note as to whether the gear is small, medium or large would be nice so that I don't carry up my entire rack for two .5 Camalots.

However, I agree with Fred that Welsford uses a pretty standard rack across the board so the information isn't necessary.

[motanb]

I agree with the limited detailing of a route,not spoiling the "unknown" terrain so to speak. With the g,pg,r,x coupled with yds and heights all denoted, this, I believe, is sufficient for any climber.

[STeveA]

We can always switch to the british system that takes the difficulty and commitment level into account. With that system, a 5.2 that is really committing may be rated the same as a well protected 5.11 with only one hard move.

[*Chris*]

We can always switch to the british system that takes the difficulty and commitment level into account. With that system, a 5.2 that is really committing may be rated the same as a well protected 5.11 with only one hard move.

Nah... but I really liked your blue, green, black tape idea!

[Thirty33]

poche is the biggest sand bag in welsford... if it is the route climbers right of joint venture its given 10c correct?

[david]

Although really nice... the first pitch of Gollum's cave is not 5.4... unless we completely missed something (and we were using the back wall.

[STeveA]

I have always felt that the first pitch of Gollum's should be 5.5 and that Reindeerland should be 5.4

If you don't use the backwall for Gollum's it is 5.8

If you have not done a lot of real chimneys Gollum's is tricky at first. Also if you do not move out towards the entrance higher up the cave it will be a hard climb.

[Climbing4life]

I have always felt that the first pitch of Gollum's should be 5.5 and that Reindeerland should be 5.4

If you don't use the backwall for Gollum's it is 5.8

If you have not done a lot of real chimneys Gollum's is tricky at first. Also if you do not move out towards the entrance higher up the cave it will be a hard climb.

PJ and I were out and did gollums cave and 5.5 is definaly a good rating , i`ve never done any real Chimneying before , but found it extremly comfortable and straight forward once i got the hang of it.
5.4 i would say is a bit easy for that route at least until u pull out round to the top part of Reindeerland