Is 5.16a possible?

Ryan Nevius wrote: Assuming Meltdown can actually be considered a slab climb.

True, and assuming that the grade stands... but it seems like a reasonable candidate

Guy Keesee wrote:5.16 is a YDS grade.... I am sure someday someone will pull it off... It's difficult to match the French system vs the YDS... YDS filters out all the subjective BS, like how tired you are... The YDS is the hardest "move" .... ONLY. I think that the hardest move gets done on a boulder, first, then a climb. I am so old that when I started climbing the local guidebook author (C. Wilts) proclaimed that 5.11 is humanly impossible!!!! And at that time there were climbs that are now graded 5.11+ that had been done. It takes a consensus of climbers to solidify a new grade level

While this might be the goal of YDS, it certainly is not the always the case. Take the RRG for example, it is well established that they contribute for the "pump factor". I'm not sure how the french scale is graded exactly, but many pros have stated that it is more "accurate"

Mark Paulson wrote: I think as grades progress, more and more unrepeated routes will probably stay unrepeated, as the hardest of the hard routes will cater so specifically to the FA'er particular mutant gift. For example, Akira is probably impossible for anyone who is shorter than Fred Rouhling. The average height of the top 100 male climbers on 8a.nu is like 5'6". Who would repeat it?

Fred Rouhling is pretty short - 5'9" with a 1.5" ape.
(source: climbing.com/climber/fred-r… )

Average height of top 8a.nu sport climbers is around 5'8" (n=50).

There may be some super-hard routes that are morpho, but I haven't heard any singled out. I don't think there's any evidence of a trend in that direction.

Also, someone mentioned that Rouhling never gets credit - actually, in an interview, Adam Ondra cited both Rouhling and Bernabe Fernandez as potential pioneers of 9b.

Bold TextBy JCM
From Golden, CO
2 days ago

Guy Keesee wrote:

5.16 is a YDS grade.... I am sure someday someone will pull it off... It's difficult to match the French system vs the YDS... YDS filters out all the subjective BS, like how tired you are... The YDS is the hardest "move" .... ONLY.

Your statements may have been true in 1960, or whenever you started climbing, but the YDS has evolved since then, even if you have not. See this thread for details:

JCM.... Thanks for the Link... that was a good read... you can bet that I have evolved a lot in the last 40 years, for sure.

But as an old fossel, I still get a kick watching strong buffed climbers crying at the bottom of some mear 5.8 crying about the lack of copious bolts.

Maybe its time for a whole new "SYSTEM" ???????

Guy Keesee wrote: Maybe its time for a whole new "SYSTEM" ???????

Yes, maybe we should just go to using the French system for technical rock climbs. It would provide a more global standard, and it doesn't have the historical artifacts (grading by hardest move, etc.) that lead to these sorts of debates. Plus, it doesn't have the silly "5." prefix.

JCM wrote: Yes, maybe we should just go to using the French system for technical rock climbs. It would provide a more global standard, and it doesn't have the historical artifacts (grading by hardest move, etc.) that lead to these sorts of debates. Plus, it doesn't have the silly "5." prefix.

If we're going for the least silly scale, I vote Eubanks. As a Kiwi friend of mine loves to explain to people (in mock-slowness): "It...starts...at....1, and goes up. The end."

All the systems seem to converge at the higher grades, probably because people who climb difficult routes tend to travel a lot.

JCM wrote: Yes, maybe we should just go to using the French system for technical rock climbs. It would provide a more global standard, and it doesn't have the historical artifacts (grading by hardest move, etc.) that lead to these sorts of debates. Plus, it doesn't have the silly "5." prefix.

but then how would people in the gunks say that their 5.4's are actually 5.12's?

Rajiv Ayyangar wrote: If we're going for the least silly scale, I vote Eubanks. As a Kiwi friend of mine loves to explain to people (in mock-slowness): "It...starts...at....1, and goes up. The end."

Maybe I'll switch to Eubanks/Aussie right now, to confuse and sandbag my climbing partners.

Me: "Don't worry mate, you shouldn't have any trouble on this, it is just a 26"

Climbing partner: "Huh?"

For me? No!!!

JCM has a good grasp of the subject.

Me... I just keep trying to climb as hard as I can... numbers are just numbers and for me 14's is a pretty abstract concept.

Hi, Locker..... +1 for you to.

NorCalNomad wrote: but then how would people in the gunks say that their 5.4's are actually 5.12's?

que 4a vraiment senti comme un 7, n'est-ce pas?

JCM wrote: We aren't "better", necessarily, but we just have access to circumstances that allow us to more easily/safely climb steeper and blanker walls. If you cloned any famous/talented climber from back in the day (Gill, Robbins, Bacher, etc) and raised them in the modern setting, they would probably be climbing 5.14, due to drive and natural talent. Major factors are (in approximate order of importance): 1. Ropes and harnesses. Back in the day (hemp rope tied around the waist (rope could break), no worthwhile pro), leading was basically soloing. Hence, "The leader must never fall". How hard would you be willing to climb if every lead was a quasi-solo? For me, I feel like 5.8 might be the cutoff...which was about as high as standards got until ropes got more reliable. Nowadays, we are allowed to try hard and push limits, since the risk factor is way lower. Also, modern harnesses make falling a much safer and more comfortable proposition. 2. Modern protection. Easy to place, reliable protection (especially cams) have had a similar effect. Gear is more solid, allowing people to push their limits more. Also, modern plug-and-go gear is less physically tiring to place. If you had to lock off and hammer in a pin every time you wanted pro, you'd get pretty pumped. 3. Shoes and rubber. Duh. How hard would you climb in hiking boots? 4. Sport climbing. Safe and convenient climbing where people can push their limits. Allows people to progress through grades much more quickly, by allowing them to get in a great volume of climbing easily, and to repeatedly push themselves to failure in a safe manner. Grade progress is much slower when every lead is a serious proposition. 5. Gyms/training. Being able to get stronger (not weaker) over the winter is huge. Gyms also just allow more volume of climbing. You can live in a city and have a real job and still get really strong. Also, the gym setting helps get kids started at a young age, which really has created some talented climbers. 6. Modern tactics. Hangdogging, redpointing, etc. These "dubious means" have allowed people to free-climb much harder grades. They have also raised difficulty standards for traditional ground-up onsights as well, by making it easier for people to practice hard moves and learn how to climb hard (see "Sport Climbing"); these skills can then be applied even in a more traditional setting. 7. More crags. Different crags. Steeper crags. Many of my favorite places to climb...areas that have really pushed me forward as a climber...weren't even discovered until the 90s. If you look at really traddy old-school areas, like Tahquitz, you realize that it would be really hard to become a 5.12 climber if that was your main zone, since there just aren't that many potential routes of that grade to try there. Also, the discovery and development of just more climbs makes it easier to climb a lot...and thus get better. Steep crags like the Red and Rifle have allowed climbers to really improve their climbing fitness, while Indian Creek has allowed crack climbers to improve rapidly. None of these places had really been developed 30 years ago. 8. More climbers. Larger talent pool to discover genetic freaks. More partners to climb with, more people to learn from. 9. Lighter gear. This is probably pretty minor. A heavier rack might drag you back by a grade at most. Reliable and easy to place gear is a bigger factor. But most importantly: "Standing on the shoulders of giants": The earlier generations led the way for us. They found the crags, cleaned the routes, discovered new techniques, invented new gear, and showed us what is possible. A new climber can step into the sport today, and the way forward is shown for them. The earlier generations had to find their own way.

Ok thanks, this is what I thought, though not so extensively.