The Pump Factor. Does it matter?

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 21 - 39 of total 39 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber

Arid-zona

Sep 27, 2008 - 11:21pm PT

"The pump factor depends on YOU. If you work out on a juggy roof all day, you will rate it differently than someone who works out on tiny vertical edges."

Um....so does the hardest move.

Mungeclimber

Trad climber

sorry, just posting out loud.

Sep 28, 2008 - 12:51am PT

Jerry,

Either it counts or it doesn't. So consequently any system of rating in order to relate a relative difficulty to another person should embrace this dichotomy.

Reid's guide...the teal colored one describes a 'pitch rating'...

"Yosemite has usually addressed the difficulty of its continuously strenous cracks as a pitch-by-pitch problem, not one of move-by-move. Thus an incredibly sustained route like Meat Grinder, which holds no single move over 5.9 in difficulty (and few under), is rated 10c."

I take that as pretty much gospel. Good enough for Reid and boys and girls, good enough for me.

Now, however, at a place like Devil's Tower I would dare say most of the traditional routes, if they retained their old Gardiner and Guilmette rating, would be rated on the single hardest move. A route like tad doesn't have a single move harder than 5.7, but every single move is old school hard 5.7. And 5.7 is supposed to be hard.

edit for gender appreciation

Sherri

climber

Sep 28, 2008 - 02:12pm PT

I wonder if the "pump factor" is already reflected in by the general stiffness of ratings found in the local climbing area. Some areas hold a concentration of overhanging or pumpy routes, so one could expect that they are all rated relative to each other(ie-they share a sustained quality so it is the route's most difficult technical move which is indicated by the rating. Could explain why certain crags or areas feel "sandbagged" when compared to those w/o a pumpy nature.

Which raises a related question: does context matter? If most of the routes in the area are one-move-wonders w/ratings based on the difficult move, does the the pumpy, sustained route nearby get rated any differently because it's the odd-man-out in terms of overall difficulty and effort?

Largo

Sport climber

Venice, Ca

Sep 28, 2008 - 02:27pm PT

I tried to rate not so much on the individual moves but more on what kind of overall effort was required to send a given climb. That is, I don't consider the rating an objective take on the hardest move, but an overall rating of the difficulty/effort required to flash the route. For example, Butterballs takes an .11c effort, even though Butterfingers (11a) has harder single moves.

JL

rgold

Trad climber

Poughkeepsie, NY

Sep 28, 2008 - 04:45pm PT

Well, here is a far more controversial issue: should the grade of a trad climb take into account the difficulty of leading it? I know of a number of climbs in which placing the pro is the most draining part of the lead. There are, let's say, 5.9 climbs that you have to be a 5.10 or better leader to lead, because the climber whose limit is 5.9 won't outlast the pump of placing the gear. Then someone follows it, ripping out the nuts and cams and letting them hang on the rope, and says, "that wasn't too bad..."

Should the grade alert the leader to the real nature of what they are in for, or should it just grade the difficulty of the moves on a top-rope? In other words, should the grade represent, in some sense, the intrinsic difficulty of the rock or should it represent the perhaps more subjective difficulty of safely leading the pitch?

cintune

climber

the Moon and Antarctica

Sep 28, 2008 - 04:57pm PT

Except in a gym, no meaningful alphanumeric grade can completely describe difficulty. There are too many variables and that's what route descriptions are for. The 5.x+ notation for endurance is pretty elegant, though, huh.

Mungeclimber

Trad climber

sorry, just posting out loud.

Sep 28, 2008 - 04:59pm PT

to rgold's question: i suspect that your question really gets at the heart of what supertopo is about. with detailed beta (a priori knowledge) of what pro may be required and when, then even Crack a No Pro can be wired ruthlessly and sent regularly, though not by me. Further, it seems a multi pitch climb that is hard to lead on all pitches as described above would be harder than say a single pitch that you can see mostly from the ground, because you can plan your strength to gear ratio strategy ahead of time and no en route.

to largo's point about 'for the flash rating' - that is something I hadn't really thought about until the last several years. True on sight leading will almost always be more difficult. So to rate for the onsight seems to want to inflate a technical grade up, yet after doing the move the urge is to want to say it is not that hard. Consequently, and especially at higher grade levels, only the strong onsight artist could or should be rating routes as they are that level, complete the climb in the intended rating method sought for the grade and so speak from a position of authority. Not very democratic, but an interesting thought experiment if you think about particular routes with the 'ideal onsight' climber going for a rating.

Largo

Sport climber

Venice, Ca

Sep 28, 2008 - 06:44pm PT

What I was saying earlier - but put differently - is that I look at a trad rating much as you would the par rating of a given hole on a golf course. The par rating (say five strokes) is not for how many shots a professional will take after playing the hole fifty times, rather what kind of effort a pro is expected to take the first time he sees said hole. Of course there's no objective or constant "pro" in the climbing rating, but since the aim is to on sight a trad pitch, the rating should reflect what kind of effort is required do just that, not how it feels after fifty laps and having all the pro dialed.

JL

Jeremy Handren

climber

Sep 28, 2008 - 07:16pm PT

Chilam Billam..combines two long 8c+ pitches into one very long 9B.

I think that answers the question.

Jeremy Handren

climber

Sep 28, 2008 - 07:22pm PT

To Rgold..
For gear routes, the grade should take into account the difficulty of climbing the pitch , and the difficulty of placing the protection, but not the "head" factor.

i.e. how hard is it to top rope the pitch, placing the gear along the way.

rgold

Trad climber

Poughkeepsie, NY

Sep 28, 2008 - 08:37pm PT

"To Rgold..
For gear routes, the grade should take into account the difficulty of climbing the pitch , and the difficulty of placing the protection, but not the "head" factor.

i.e. how hard is it to top rope the pitch, placing the gear along the way."

Right---that was my question. I don't think the rating can or should include mental factors.

I agree with Largo and JH that the effort expended in getting in the gear ought to figure in the rating of a trad climb, and that the rating ought to reflect the difficulty of an onsight attempt rather than grade the experience one has after practicing the route over and over again.

I'm not sure that this is always the way things work out, especially when a local guidebook-writer has done a route scores of times before deciding on a grade for it.

Tarbuster

climber

right here, right now

Sep 28, 2008 - 09:13pm PT

Largo wrote:
"since the aim is to on sight a trad pitch, the rating should reflect what kind of effort is required [to] do just that"

Bingo!

I like and appreciate the spirit of "rate a climb only according to the single hardest move encountered along the way".

Stiff/sandbaggy/1960's 5.9+ style grading metrics put the burden of accomplishment and progression on the climber, keeping one "honest" in terms of self appraisal, in turn encouraging striving, self sufficiency, and safety (safety through wariness and a hefty dose of modesty). Likewise, rating for pump was once thought by some to weaken resolve and constituted one of the earlier tactics in the slide toward softer ratings.

My sense of the merit of single hardest move rating, is that technical difficulties are more easily gauged; consensus to these vary less among climbers than do requirements of stamina. A route’s technical difficulty can be seen as relatively fixed and although the means of appraisal are subjective, corresponding skills brought to the fore such as fitness, stamina, and pacing are highly variable amongst the climbing populace.

Nevertheless, rating an entire climb or pitch purely on the basis of a single move feels unrealistic, because a climb in total is not a single move (or even limited to a static object such as the rock, sans climber), a climb is an experience: it is encountered through a persistence of movement.

scuffy b

climber

Elmertown

Sep 29, 2008 - 11:23am PT

If you ignore pump factor, sooner or later you will face a contradiction, where you can float some 5.11 with no pump, yet get spanked by some pumpy 10a. How are you going to explain that without making people roll their eyes?

GRJ

climber

Juneau AK

Sep 29, 2008 - 01:43pm PT

I love problems that are rated by their hardest move and not the pump. Consider this; climbers have their strengths and weaknesses, if you are thuggy climber should we rate slabs to lowest common denominator.

I found a new bouldering area this summer and had to figure out how to rate a bunch of problems with another climber. His endurance is super low but he can crank dynamic powerful V9ish. I on the other hand am somewhat horizontally challenged at the moment and cannot, but I found a roof crack that was 5.11+/12-, after about 20-25 tries I fired it. He thought it was solid V7/8. It just isn't his style.

Now should we rate a V3/4 problem that I can drag my fat ass up V7/8 because it is a weakness for the average boulderer.

All these debates create grey area and mushy grades in areas. Butter Balls is a stout problem but once you build up a little time throwing finger locks it is pretty reasonable. Come on up to Index. The grades are solid and it will prepare you for any 5.10 you run into, not just some of them. Peace

Ryan

looking sketchy there...

Social climber

Latitute 33

Sep 29, 2008 - 02:29pm PT

Largo pretty much hit it on the head. A rating should tell you something about the "difficulty" of the on-sight lead. For trad routes, this necessitates taking into consideration the ease (or difficulty) in placing pro.

Only rating the "most difficult move" takes that move out of context of the entire experience of the climb. In that respect, the hardest move rating can be as honest as quoting people out of context (which may or may not give a realistic impression of the overall difficulty -- or views being expressed).

Ratings attempt to quantify a subjective experience -- a risky endevour, particularly for a guidebook writer. In the best case, they should be a concensus of a broad range of climbers. John Sherman provided a money back guarantee to his Hueco Tanks ratings-- **

** "V ratings are only guaranteed at 55 degrees f, 20% humidity, for 6'1 1/2" tall climbers weighing 160 lbs with below average flexibility, above average strength, minor finger arthritis, a bad left hip, size 10 1/2 feet crammed into size 8 Fires [remember those?], perfectly even ape index, a hand size that precisely matches the author's and no beta."

Good grist for thought.

BTW: Of course pump counts.

scuffy b

climber

Elmertown

Sep 29, 2008 - 02:39pm PT

"It's not really that hard, I was just too pumped to pull it off."

wbw

climber

'cross the great divide

Sep 29, 2008 - 02:53pm PT

"It should be all about the climb- you can do it or you can't do it."

That depends on what the meaning of the word "do" is.

Didn't Clinton say this when asked if he "did" Monica Lewinsky??