|On 2/03/2011 davidn wrote:
>The alternative is true as well, however. You climb NO and think 'oh,
>grade 13 is this hard' and then jump on another, far shorter grade 13 and
>wonder why it feels quite a bit harder. Sandbag either way.
Length comes into it, but not necessarily in the way you may be thinking. See my point lower* in this post...
>This also probably explains why the grade of Noblesse has fluctuated a
>Given the lack of protection and height are explained in the description
>of the climb, I still don't see a good reason to grade using exposure,
>pro and technical difficulty. The more subjective factors you add in (difficulty
>and exposure), the greater variance in grades you're going to create based
>on individual perception. And pro doesn't make a climb hard, it makes
>it more/less dangerous. Further, grading on all these factors still seems
>to me to be against the Ewbank theory.
*I think you are viewing 'exposure' from a simplistic (boulderers?), perspective, ie from a purely technical angle?
Instead, exposure in the Ewbank context (as I understand it), is not simply a matter of amount of air beneath the climbers feet, but includes the relative exposure the climber feels, due to many other considerations like objective danger (loose blocks etc), spaced (inadequate amount or quality) pro, poor landings, etc.
The whole climbing game is subjective due to the number of participants, and there will always be grading variance accordingly; however I think you will find a surprising amount of concensus, not only within individual grading systems, but also in comparing them worldwide.
& on 03/03/2011 wrote;
>>I find this whole topic amusing from the point of view that a boulderer
>is questioning route grades of any type, be they trad, sport or... wait, i'm sure he doesn't care about aid grades! ... since his focus/experience is primarily from the
low boulderers viewpoint!
Fixed that for you again.
Heh, heh, heh.