Alright,
I have something to think about and no one to listen to it.
When training endurance, you climb for an extended period of time on easy stuff.
It seems to me that depending on where the climbing falls on your personal difficulty spectrum, the grade of the climbing movement will change.
Today I was training on the circuit board, as was another chap. I did my two or three goes around and then he jumped on.
He then proceeded to lap a 40 move 6b and a 40 move 6c+, one after another. For 45 minutes. Never touching the ground, or resting in a bridge etc. He didn't look like it taxed him especially, he can clearly climb a lot harder.
Besides being impressive to me (that's way above my endurance threshold) it got me thinking.
If I (someone who can onsight 7a on a good day) were to grade 6b>6c+>6b>6c+, it would probably be around 7b or higher on the effort scale based on routes I've done.
But if the guy with the infinite forearms were to grade it, would it ever get above 6c+?
My thinking is that it's so far below his ability that the easier bit wouldn't affect his chances of completing the 6c+ bit.
If I reduce its own to my level, I could infinitely lap 6b>4>6b>4 etc and it would only ever be 6b to me because I was fully recovering on the easy ground. However to a 6b climber it would feel maybe 7a after a couple of goes round.
So who is correct?
Does this relate to real world grading? People grading stuff way below their threshold will get it wrong for everyone else, but right for themselves and people looking down (the grading scale)
Does any of this make sense?
obviously it's only training and the grades don't matter, it was just an intriguing thought to me. Might be utter crap to y'all
