This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Following on from the other thread about 3* routes, what makes a good indoor route? And a bad one?
In reply to Paul at work:
Not having the crux as the last move
Not having the crux as the last move
In reply to Tommyads: On the contrary, I like routes which get harder with every move. Surely you don't want the crux near the ground.
Generally, I like indoor routes to be sustained rather than overly cruxy.
Generally, I like indoor routes to be sustained rather than overly cruxy.
In reply to Paul at work:
A good route makes you think about how to execute every move. A variety of holds (not all jugs, not all crimps) as it is outdoors. It will also get you into some positions that makes you concentrate on your balance.
Harder routes should test your flexibility and balance, not just your finger strength!
A bad route is a ladder. A 5a being a ladder of jugs; and a 7a is a ladder of crimps. A 9a is an overhanging ladder of crimps... etc.
That's my opinion anyway
A good route makes you think about how to execute every move. A variety of holds (not all jugs, not all crimps) as it is outdoors. It will also get you into some positions that makes you concentrate on your balance.
Harder routes should test your flexibility and balance, not just your finger strength!
A bad route is a ladder. A 5a being a ladder of jugs; and a 7a is a ladder of crimps. A 9a is an overhanging ladder of crimps... etc.
That's my opinion anyway
In reply to Paul at work:
For me the 'memorable' routes generally have:
1. Some special wall feature (e.g. a roof section to climb past where you are horizontal for a move) especially if it provides a sense of exposure more than you get on a 'normal' flattish wall.
2. Some kind of special move that you need to think/experiment a bit to figure out to make the route possible at the grade.
The worst routes are ones where you get 3/4 of the way up and discover there's a bit where the holds are so far apart it is impossible for someone with normal length arms to reach the next one. Of course, if it just looks like it's impossible but then you stick at it and figure out a trick which makes it possible then it immediately becomes a great route.
For me the 'memorable' routes generally have:
1. Some special wall feature (e.g. a roof section to climb past where you are horizontal for a move) especially if it provides a sense of exposure more than you get on a 'normal' flattish wall.
2. Some kind of special move that you need to think/experiment a bit to figure out to make the route possible at the grade.
The worst routes are ones where you get 3/4 of the way up and discover there's a bit where the holds are so far apart it is impossible for someone with normal length arms to reach the next one. Of course, if it just looks like it's impossible but then you stick at it and figure out a trick which makes it possible then it immediately becomes a great route.
In reply to Paul at work: one that is not overhaning!
In reply to Paul at work:
I can get up it, my mates can't.
> Following on from the other thread about 3* routes, what makes a good indoor route?
I can get up it, my mates can't.
In reply to Paul at work: i feel a good route is made by sustained hardness like you get in boulder problems plus an extra hard crux move, because it feels like such an achievment when you've done it, plus to make the perfect route it has to be a mis of powerful moves and techniques like heel and toe hooks
In reply to SimonMarcYoung: Agree
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: Sounds about right to me
In reply to Paul at work: Maybe bad ones are the one you come down off without a smile,the good ones leave you feeling good, and breathless! Personally,I could only say whether or not a route was bad or good was if it was lower than my grade-I hate everything that I push,therefore it's a bad route (to me) until I finish it! :O)
In reply to Paul at work: I enjoy a route that I feel I'm about to fall off as I pull through the crux. Also like things that follow a feature such as an arete or a corner. Enjoy a good roof too.
In reply to Paul at work: A good route requires not-obvious tricks to get up it, might have a red herring hold or two, doesn't necessarily go straight up and is oe which us shorties might be physically capable of
In reply to Paul at work: Personaly I don't like routes that go streight up, I like to wonder about a bit and not know what's going to come next. Maybe a dead end then a step down to traverse or a step around a corner, something thrown in that you can't workout from the floor is great.
In reply to Paul at work:
1. Nice holds. Hard as necessary for the grade, but ergonomic, more than for a bouldering wall in my opinion. Same brand and hold phylosophy throughout the route, especially try not to mix minimalist shapes with baroque/featured ones.
2. A line that zig-zags a lot yet manages to always get you to a reasonable clip.
3. A mandatory handhold sequence, but several foothold options.
4.A strong choice about the character of the route. A ladder is ok, Techy is ok, powerful is ok, 1st half powerful into 2nd half techy is ok...a bit of everything is not and makes all routes feel the same...
5. If there are weird/tricky moves, they should be appropriate for the level and self-evident to someone having the level to onsight the route (bizarre and insecure is totally ok, unreadable and hidden isn't).
6. No extreme flexibility requirements. Throw an extra shitty foothold in, and leave the flexy stuff for the boulder wall
6.A smart use of non hold features (aretes, dihedrals, volumes). If one can grab the arete, smear/palm the dihedral, etc...don't put any hold or put a shitty slopey thing just to show the way. But don't overdo it.
1. Nice holds. Hard as necessary for the grade, but ergonomic, more than for a bouldering wall in my opinion. Same brand and hold phylosophy throughout the route, especially try not to mix minimalist shapes with baroque/featured ones.
2. A line that zig-zags a lot yet manages to always get you to a reasonable clip.
3. A mandatory handhold sequence, but several foothold options.
4.A strong choice about the character of the route. A ladder is ok, Techy is ok, powerful is ok, 1st half powerful into 2nd half techy is ok...a bit of everything is not and makes all routes feel the same...
5. If there are weird/tricky moves, they should be appropriate for the level and self-evident to someone having the level to onsight the route (bizarre and insecure is totally ok, unreadable and hidden isn't).
6. No extreme flexibility requirements. Throw an extra shitty foothold in, and leave the flexy stuff for the boulder wall
6.A smart use of non hold features (aretes, dihedrals, volumes). If one can grab the arete, smear/palm the dihedral, etc...don't put any hold or put a shitty slopey thing just to show the way. But don't overdo it.
In reply to Paul at work:
Something that isn't obvious - where you have to think about the best way to do it.
Where it is sustained - about the same level of difficulty all the way up.
Where it isn't made harder simply by the holds being miles apart.
Where good use is made of features, prefereably having a 3 dimensional element to it, which allows you to make use of a cunning bridge or a smear off a feature.
Where it doesn't just go straight up, but has a bit of sideways movement to it at some point.
Where you get to use your whole body position, rather than just moving your arms and legs.
And where you don't have to hesitate because you have no idea if a hold is 'in' or not, because you can't tell its colour at all from above, because they all look black.
Something that isn't obvious - where you have to think about the best way to do it.
Where it is sustained - about the same level of difficulty all the way up.
Where it isn't made harder simply by the holds being miles apart.
Where good use is made of features, prefereably having a 3 dimensional element to it, which allows you to make use of a cunning bridge or a smear off a feature.
Where it doesn't just go straight up, but has a bit of sideways movement to it at some point.
Where you get to use your whole body position, rather than just moving your arms and legs.
And where you don't have to hesitate because you have no idea if a hold is 'in' or not, because you can't tell its colour at all from above, because they all look black.
Its easier to say what makes a bad route.
Obvious one is not having similar colours close together, my local wall just put up a line with 3 routes of pink, purple and mauve, yes it may look aesthetically pleasing but a nightmare to climb.
A route which is hard because the distance between holds is big is annoying for us shorties, a new 6b went up which i'd have to stick a dyno onto a pinch because i'm unable to reach using the move it seems designed for, even using a cheat foot hold my arms were too short.
For me a good route is one which can only be climbed by using good technique and not just about more strength on smaller holds.
Obvious one is not having similar colours close together, my local wall just put up a line with 3 routes of pink, purple and mauve, yes it may look aesthetically pleasing but a nightmare to climb.
A route which is hard because the distance between holds is big is annoying for us shorties, a new 6b went up which i'd have to stick a dyno onto a pinch because i'm unable to reach using the move it seems designed for, even using a cheat foot hold my arms were too short.
For me a good route is one which can only be climbed by using good technique and not just about more strength on smaller holds.
In reply to antdav: 'For me a good route is one which can only be climbed by using good technique and not just about more strength on smaller holds.'
I agree. The route could have jugs on but the moves dictate that they cannot be thugged. Also the most pleasing thing for me is sustained difficulty; where the route might not have a significant crux. The difficulty comes from stringing all the moves together as one sequence, so it feels 'complete'. The opposite of that i find uninteresting by comparison unless the crux move itself is particulaly fun to do. Having an easy section then a brutal crux then an easy section again just feels disjointed.
I agree. The route could have jugs on but the moves dictate that they cannot be thugged. Also the most pleasing thing for me is sustained difficulty; where the route might not have a significant crux. The difficulty comes from stringing all the moves together as one sequence, so it feels 'complete'. The opposite of that i find uninteresting by comparison unless the crux move itself is particulaly fun to do. Having an easy section then a brutal crux then an easy section again just feels disjointed.
In reply to Paul at work:
Sustained, not cruxy (if I had wanted a bouldering session, I would have gone bouldering).
No good rests (I'm trying to get fit) but a couple of really poor shake-outs can be good training.
Make me use my feet (some sideways bits, so you can't stand on the handholds is good).
It must flow with no weird awkwardness (I'm training, so may want to do this route scores of times and I'd rather enjoy it).
Good technical moves preferably, but not too fall-offable (I only want to fail when I'm really pumped).
> What makes a good indoor route?
Sustained, not cruxy (if I had wanted a bouldering session, I would have gone bouldering).
No good rests (I'm trying to get fit) but a couple of really poor shake-outs can be good training.
Make me use my feet (some sideways bits, so you can't stand on the handholds is good).
It must flow with no weird awkwardness (I'm training, so may want to do this route scores of times and I'd rather enjoy it).
Good technical moves preferably, but not too fall-offable (I only want to fail when I'm really pumped).
In reply to Paul at work:
A good routes indoors for me is technical and can't be overcome by sheer thuggery. Balancy or delicate moves are always good fun, as are routes which involve obscure technique or make you scratch your head a bit.
A good routes indoors for me is technical and can't be overcome by sheer thuggery. Balancy or delicate moves are always good fun, as are routes which involve obscure technique or make you scratch your head a bit.
In reply to Paul at work:
Overall at a wall it's nice to have a mix IMO - some nonobvious stuff that you have to think about the right sequence and some straightforward stuff that you just need to have the strength and technique to get up. Plenty of variety to work different strengths and skills.
For interesting indoor routes, walls with interesting changes of angle always seem quite cool, eg at the Castle, the Pen where you can come out from under the variously angled roofs onto vertical stuff, or the panels with the various different shifts from roofs up to slabs or pulls round aretes or pushes up corners and so on.
Overall at a wall it's nice to have a mix IMO - some nonobvious stuff that you have to think about the right sequence and some straightforward stuff that you just need to have the strength and technique to get up. Plenty of variety to work different strengths and skills.
For interesting indoor routes, walls with interesting changes of angle always seem quite cool, eg at the Castle, the Pen where you can come out from under the variously angled roofs onto vertical stuff, or the panels with the various different shifts from roofs up to slabs or pulls round aretes or pushes up corners and so on.
In reply to the.last.thesaurus:
seeing many advocates of technical routes and doing a bit of routesetting myself i have a few questions for the tech lovers...
a)give a french grade range @which you are likely to operate indoors
b)do you mostly climb outdoors or indoors?
c)Give me 1 or 2 concrete examples of moves/situations that you consider "technical".
d)Imagine a route that is much easier if climbed technically but that can also be overpowered. You climb it to the chains finding it very physical and conclude that it is just brute strenght. Later that night you see someone climbing the same route gracefully and notice at least a couple of important details that you had missed on your ascent. Do you reconsider your opinion of the route? Do you climb it again?
seeing many advocates of technical routes and doing a bit of routesetting myself i have a few questions for the tech lovers...
a)give a french grade range @which you are likely to operate indoors
b)do you mostly climb outdoors or indoors?
c)Give me 1 or 2 concrete examples of moves/situations that you consider "technical".
d)Imagine a route that is much easier if climbed technically but that can also be overpowered. You climb it to the chains finding it very physical and conclude that it is just brute strenght. Later that night you see someone climbing the same route gracefully and notice at least a couple of important details that you had missed on your ascent. Do you reconsider your opinion of the route? Do you climb it again?
In reply to ghisino:
> (In reply to teh_mark)
>
> a)give a french grade range @which you are likely to operate indoors - 6b/c
> b)do you mostly climb outdoors or indoors? - Indoors in winter, mixed in summer
> c)Give me 1 or 2 concrete examples of moves/situations that you consider "technical". - Tough to describe but any move which takes the power away by flagging, using drop knees, turning hips into the wall, getting body away from vertical etc. Get the climber away from the standard, left arm on the left etc. One route at my wall has an awkward penultimate hand hold about 2.5feet below final jug, small foot hold slightly offset to the right, the majority of climbers perform and awkward pull up and snatch for the final jug with, the more technical climbers put left hip to wall, left foot on hold and straight arm from penultimate hold and go up with ease (hope you can imagine it). Pretty much anything where the often used line of 'good climbers make hard routes look easy' can be used.
> d)Imagine a route that is much easier if climbed technically but that can also be overpowered. You climb it to the chains finding it very physical and conclude that it is just brute strenght. Later that night you see someone climbing the same route gracefully and notice at least a couple of important details that you had missed on your ascent. Do you reconsider your opinion of the route? Do you climb it again? - I'd climb again trying to optimize the way I climbed which generally boils down to climbing with straight arms for as much as possible and completing all moves in control and minimizing the pump at the finish.
>
> a)give a french grade range @which you are likely to operate indoors - 6b/c
> b)do you mostly climb outdoors or indoors? - Indoors in winter, mixed in summer
> c)Give me 1 or 2 concrete examples of moves/situations that you consider "technical". - Tough to describe but any move which takes the power away by flagging, using drop knees, turning hips into the wall, getting body away from vertical etc. Get the climber away from the standard, left arm on the left etc. One route at my wall has an awkward penultimate hand hold about 2.5feet below final jug, small foot hold slightly offset to the right, the majority of climbers perform and awkward pull up and snatch for the final jug with, the more technical climbers put left hip to wall, left foot on hold and straight arm from penultimate hold and go up with ease (hope you can imagine it). Pretty much anything where the often used line of 'good climbers make hard routes look easy' can be used.
> d)Imagine a route that is much easier if climbed technically but that can also be overpowered. You climb it to the chains finding it very physical and conclude that it is just brute strenght. Later that night you see someone climbing the same route gracefully and notice at least a couple of important details that you had missed on your ascent. Do you reconsider your opinion of the route? Do you climb it again? - I'd climb again trying to optimize the way I climbed which generally boils down to climbing with straight arms for as much as possible and completing all moves in control and minimizing the pump at the finish.
In reply to ghisino:
There's probably a difference between routes that involve / test / train technique and routes that actually require you to consciously think about technique, isn't there? I mean, a basic laddery route is a lot easier if you have good technique even if you don't have to spend ages working out the best sequence...
There's probably a difference between routes that involve / test / train technique and routes that actually require you to consciously think about technique, isn't there? I mean, a basic laddery route is a lot easier if you have good technique even if you don't have to spend ages working out the best sequence...
In reply to Ramblin dave:
i think i see your point.
the problem is, setting routes that "require" appropriate technique for their grade and are enjoyable, is not trivial.
recently i had a lot of pinchy holds to set a 6a/b route on a slightly overhung wall.
I thought : "let's make it a bit tufa-like, everything set as vertical holds..."
Well, the first climber i've seen on it almost managed to face-climb the whole thing, pulling a massive effort, vibrating on every move...
Did the route fail to communicate its "technical theme?" (backstep&dropknee). Would this climber try to face climb the hell out of a real tufa climb anyway?
i think i see your point.
the problem is, setting routes that "require" appropriate technique for their grade and are enjoyable, is not trivial.
recently i had a lot of pinchy holds to set a 6a/b route on a slightly overhung wall.
I thought : "let's make it a bit tufa-like, everything set as vertical holds..."
Well, the first climber i've seen on it almost managed to face-climb the whole thing, pulling a massive effort, vibrating on every move...
Did the route fail to communicate its "technical theme?" (backstep&dropknee). Would this climber try to face climb the hell out of a real tufa climb anyway?
In reply to Paul at work:
ghisino's list sums it up for me and I would just add:
- holds that short people can reach
- not too difficult before the first clip
ghisino's list sums it up for me and I would just add:
- holds that short people can reach
- not too difficult before the first clip
In reply to ghisino:
Yeah, some people can and will thug their way up anything. But it sounds like there you've set an interesting route where people can think consciously about using clever techniques to make it easier, so I wouldn't worry if some people just don't take advantage of that.
All I was really saying is that even if a route doesn't require you to heel hook an arete to stabilise yourself or move from a drop knee to an inside flag and then rock over onto a slab it can still get easier and less thuggy with good foot placement, hand position, body position, use of momentum etc.
Yeah, some people can and will thug their way up anything. But it sounds like there you've set an interesting route where people can think consciously about using clever techniques to make it easier, so I wouldn't worry if some people just don't take advantage of that.
All I was really saying is that even if a route doesn't require you to heel hook an arete to stabilise yourself or move from a drop knee to an inside flag and then rock over onto a slab it can still get easier and less thuggy with good foot placement, hand position, body position, use of momentum etc.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...