is 5.8 really that much easier than 5.10

Chris Duca wrote:There are three places in the united states where 5.8 is no joke...Index, the Adirondacks, and Joshua Tree...I'd also consider the Gunks, though climbing juggy roofs does not necessarily equate to sandbagged.

Agree with the Gunks evaluation. Have often heard of those 5.11+ overhanging face climb sporties who are lost with a Gunks crack and roof climb.

Old Custer wrote:If grade discrepancies disturb you, I would caution you to never take up trad climbing.

hahaha, too true man, too true. I know what you're talking about, to me it seems like a mental thing, if you're clippin and rippin for eighty feet then you get to one committing 5.8ish move, its not really any harder than 5.8, it just seems harder because you just climbed eighty feet of really easy climbing.

martinharris wrote: I can't wait for the spray this is going to create. And yes I can lead 5.10 trad and sport on a semi consistent basis and have never fallen on a 5.8

OK, so you can lead 5.10 "semi consistently," and have "never fallen on a 5.8," and you want to know if the grade is different? I think you answered your own question.
But there are hard 8's and easy 10's that confuse the issue. IE if you were climbing in Boulder Canyon and flashed all the 10b sport climbs put up since 2006, you might still find the 1970's consensus 5.8's a little difficult.

offwidth ....

5.10 is the new 5.8

^^^ Get OUT of my head, David!

johnL wrote:Why do people try to apply so much precision to a feeling?

mind = blown

David Sahalie wrote: youtube.com/watch?v=SSR6Zzj…

+1 for Boston reference.

I remember falling on a 5.10b sport climb at a time when I was generally on sighting a bit harder than that; I actually free solo'ed a couple 10a's round about the same time. I think I also fell top roping a 5.9 when I was breaking into leading 11- trad.

Basically every time I got on a climb without engaging it entirely I found myself wondering “don't I climb harder than this?”

Nothing is harder than 5.9, it's just a matter of how many +'s are after it.

Sam Stephens wrote:Nothing is harder than 5.9, it's just a matter of how many +'s are after it.

++++++++1

martinharris wrote: And yes I can lead 5.10 trad and sport on a semi consistent basis and have never fallen on a 5.8

Martin,
I'm somewhat perplexed by this statement although maybe that's just because I suck. Did you ever learn to climb or were you just born hiking 5.8's like they were the super casual routes they seem to be for you. It makes me feel like I should be seeing you in a sponsor's video in the next six months or so. Really not trying to violate #1 I swear.

Well, I'm pretty sure you guys won't believe this, but I just looked at a number line and it seems like 5.10 is the same thing as 5.1!! It doesn't matter how many zeroes you put after the one tenth- its the same number! And 5.8 is .7 higher than 5.1 (or 5.10, or 5.100)!!

So, it follows logically, that since 5.8 is higher on the number line and climbing difficulty increases as the numbers increase, 5.8 is approximately .7 more difficult than 5.10.

It really puts into perspective all those "hardmen" climbing 5.14 and beyond. I'm going to climb a 5.2 and spray all over 8a.nu!

muttonface wrote: This sums up the whole topic and the subjectivity issue perfectly. One sentence. Of course, I don't have those well rounded skills, but I'm well aware of the concept that I need them, and if I did have them, I would be more versatile in more areas.

Agree. Have met several sporties at RRG who have no clue what crack climbing is about. Give them crimper face steeps and they run it out. Hand them an offwidth crack and they are puzzled just like most non-cracks are about what to do.

muttonface wrote:LOL. Give me an offwidth and I cry.

I do it differently. Give me a hard offwidth, and I'll puke.

Now give me a hard tips crack and (after grinding my fingers to jelly) I'll cry.

Okay, I might not literally puke or cry, but I may get pretty close!

GO