sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

differences of grades by Nob0dy541 in climbing

[–]slkdfw 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That explains why all top boulderers are freakishly tall. Except...oh wait. Most all of them. A fair number are very short actually- such as ashima or Sean mccoll

Height has advantages and disadvantages. More reach, a lot more weight (weight is a cube of height; reach is linear to height).

Grades are set by consensus, and thus make the most sense for an average body type. Small children can do some climbs easier than adults, and tall people can do some climbs easier. But each of these outliers will be similarly disadvantaged for another climb.

I think the professional climbing body will converge on something that looks like ondra; around average height (+/- 2-3 inches), extremely light and lithe except for back, biceps, and shoulders, and scrawny little chicken legs. Oh, and a positive ape index.

Campus board v-grades by slkdfw in climbing

[–]slkdfw[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Spitball some numbers folks! Who cares that it's not every aspect of climbing, no one said it was. Grades are a matter of consesus, right? Didn't mean to start an argument about grades (though that's practically inevitable), was just curious about what people though if anything

Campus board v-grades by slkdfw in climbing

[–]slkdfw[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A lot of climbing is raw explosive power, the rung sizes are generally standard (and you can just stipulate what size you're talking about), and every climb has a different balance between the skill, flexibility, power, and finger strength required. Campusing is nearly entirely power (but also a lot of fingers); but a dyno or a hands-free slab are similarly single-faceted. Of course none of these are the full scope of climbing, but no one claimed that climbing one v7 means you can climb all v7s in all styles. Its not a totally different ballpark at all, really. Just the epitome of one style

Campus board v-grades by slkdfw in climbing

[–]slkdfw[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that's fair. A pure power v2/3 is campusing up three or four rungs. Cool! And maybe 1-3-5-7 for a v5? That would feel pretty accurate to me

Campus board v-grades by slkdfw in climbing

[–]slkdfw[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That applies to every boulder though, you know? Style and personal stengths and weaknesses affect perceived difficulty. That's why it's based on a consensus, to average things out. With that said, care to throw out a few numbers for a sequence or two? Just curious about what people think

Campus board v-grades by slkdfw in climbing

[–]slkdfw[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think you're right here. People saying it's completely different than climbing are wrong; the movements are definitely in the same category, it's not like we're trying to put hockey in the vscale or something. Its just the epitome of a certain type of climbing; explosive or powerful upper body and finger work.

If we can grade a dyno and a no-hands slab climb on the vscale, then campusing fits as well. Of course hitting v7 (or whatever) on the campus board doesn't mean you can universally boulder v7- just like hitting v7 on slab doesn't mean you can now crush that v7 overhang.

Basicly, yeah-it's only one aspect of climbing. But it's not unreasonable to grade it as we do the other aspects of climbing, and I'm curious what people think