what the heck is a moderate anyway?

Like Coeus is saying, I do think that it can be relative.

And yet, there are some very solid defining lines, such as:

Personally, for me, I define it as:
5.0-5.8 achievable by anyone without training
5.9-5.10 advanced techniques, but no training required to send
5.11-5.12 requires training and at least 3 days a week of climbing
5.13-5.15 requires full time climbing and training, this is your 40+ hours a week job.

Obviously people can argue about where the lines are drawn, but simply looking at how much time is required in general by any given climber to climb these types of things is pretty straight forward. The thing that makes it difficult are the stand-out climbers that are graced with the natural ability to climb hard stuff easily :D

A 5.8 climber thinks of his climbing range as 'moderate'. A 5.12+ climber thinks of any 5.10 as 'moderate'. It's all in who is making the call and labeling the system by their own definition.

Woodchuck ATC wrote:A 5.8 climber thinks of his climbing range as 'moderate'. A 5.12+ climber thinks of any 5.10 as 'moderate'. It's all in who is making the call and labeling the system by their own definition.

Of course, the difference is that a 5.12+ climber invests FAR more time climbing and training than a 5.8 climber.

Yeah, what is "hard" is different, but the time they have sunk into being able to make it that way is pretty evident and not nearly as subjective.

Spri wrote: Of course, the difference is that a 5.12+ climber invests FAR more time climbing and training than a 5.8 climber. Yeah, what is "hard" is different, but the time they have sunk into being able to make it that way is pretty evident and not nearly as subjective.

If a 23 year old climber and a 82 year old climber send the same 5.8 climb, they will probably view the category a bit different. The 82 year old possibly trains a lot harder than the 23 year old. Just sayin.

I witnessed a group of 7 men and women climbing 5.6-5.8 climbs who were the age range of 75 through 82. The 82 climbed the hardest routes, continually sending the 5.8 routes.

If that won't humble a person, nothing will!

Yea, probably not nearly as humbling as watching a 70 year old warm up on 12+, and I have seen it done many times. But that is because they imagined a world where 5.12 was moderate, and it became so. Kind of cool and inspiring.

Jonhy Q wrote:Yea, probably not nearly as humbling as watching a 70 year old warm up on 12+, and I have seen it done many times. But that is because they imagined a world where 5.12 was moderate, and it became so. Kind of cool and inspiring.

+++++

awesome/inspiring

Also depends on where you're climbing. "Moderate" might take on a different meaning if you're climbing at old school sandbag areas. For example, a 5.7 in JTree can mean a variety of things. Big difference between something that most people cruise like ToeJam ("easy") and something that most people (even solid 5.11 climbers) struggle on like Double Cross or Buissonier. (more appropriately classified as "moderate")

I think it's funny that people are trying to find words to categorize climbing grades - climbing grades exist because words aren't a very good way to explain a climb's difficulty.

mike h wrote:words aren't a very good way to explain a climb's difficulty.

neither are grades...

Daniel Wade wrote:Also depends on where you're climbing. "Moderate" might take on a different meaning if you're climbing at old school sandbag areas.

Good to see this mentioned. I think that defining "moderate" differently for each individual climber is too flexible, since it robs the term of any useful meaning. Defining "moderate" by the area/crag, though, works a bit better. More specifically, I think that a "moderate" is the level of route that the median climber at a given crag will find pleasantly challenging, yet will be able to climb it. This definition excludes routes that would be considered really easy and routes that are really hard, by local standards, from being called moderate.

This varies a lot from area to area. At somewhere stiffly graded, old school, and traddy, like the Gunks, the "moderate" grade is probably 5.7-5.10, since that is the grade that the average Gunks climber is comfortably challenged and engaged. "Easy" there is 5.6 or below, and "hard" starts at 5.10+, as defined by the median Gunks climber.

At Indian Creek, 5.10 to 5.11 is moderate. 5.9 to 5.10- is considered easy by most non-gumbies there, and proper 5.12 is considered respectably hard by most there, unless your name is Didier or Alex.

At Rifle, 5.12 to mid 5.13 is probably the "moderate" grade; most people seem to warm up on 5.11s.

From the news reports, it sounds like 5.14a is a "moderate" at Oliana.

So, the term "moderate" varies a lot, but you can ascertain what is means by factoring in the area that is is being asked about.

martinharris wrote:My theory is that just about any one can climb 5.10 if they wanted to. Harder than that requires some amount of training.

I do not agree. If you were to pluck any fit, non-climber person off the street and throw them on a "typical" 5.10 (not some burly, overhanging jugfest or super-crimpy technical slab), I bet they would flail. They may possess the overall strength to pull a 5.10 move or two, but lack of technique and endurance would most likely shut them down. At least that's what my fragile 5.10 ego chooses to believe.

does it matter .....

go climb as hard as you can as long as you can ... thats all there is to it ...

Derek W wrote: They are subgrades, that's how I account for it.

So this got me wondering about letter grades. As I progress up the scale it seems like getting to the next letter grade gets harder and harder. For example, going from onsighting 5.7 to onsighting 5.8 was pretty quick. But getting from onsighting 11d to onsighting 12a has been a huge time committment. Should letter grades be viewed as "subgrades" or is the gap between them as big as the single digit number grades. In other words is going from 5.7 to 5.8 as hard as going from 12a to 12b?

bearbreeder wrote:does it matter ..... go climb as hard as you can as long as you can ... thats all there is to it ...

you're right, it doesn't really matter. I just think our usage of language is interesting. I see the use of "moderate" to describe "beginner" climbs and think of it similarly to giving kids participation trophies for sports....

Coeus wrote: So this got me wondering about letter grades. As I progress up the scale it seems like getting to the next letter grade gets harder and harder. For example, going from onsighting 5.7 to onsighting 5.8 was pretty quick. But getting from onsighting 11d to onsighting 12a has been a huge time committment. Should letter grades be viewed as "subgrades" or is the gap between them as big as the single digit number grades. In other words is going from 5.7 to 5.8 as hard as going from 12a to 12b?

I think the question would be, does the difficulty in climbing grades increase linearly or exponentially? The answer to that, I think, is also subjective.

I have no desire to climb 12s so I couldn't say how much harder a 12b is than 12a. Sorry.

Derek W wrote: I think the question would be, does the difficulty in climbing grades increase linearly or exponentially?

Interesting question, I would argue exponentially.

whats so hard? a moderate is a little harder than easy, and a little easier than hard.

catagorizing a climb is a little crazy, catagorizing a BJ makes perfect sense. Wasn't the best, wasn't the worst it was moderate at best.

JLP wrote:I've never seen a "solid 5.11" climber, even a clueless one trained 100% on plastic, struggle on any 5.8 anywhere.

I take it you haven't climbed much on "easy" Valley offwidths then...I've had a partner who'd redpointed Smith 5.13b struggle following Valley 5.7 offwidth!

Moderate = where you're having lots of fun and you're not gripped at all.

Coeus wrote: .... In other words is going from 5.7 to 5.8 as hard as going from 12a to 12b?

No, it gets harder. If it didn't we'd all be 5.15 climbers within a few years.

Back to your original question, I've always figured 5.8 to easy 5.10 were "moderate." That definition has been pretty consistent with me since the days when I was struggling on 5.7. It's a range that most people can't do without putting in at least some time on the rock, but most people can get there without too much effort or time once they start climbing.