ratings schmatings

im in florida this week for a thanksgiving break. after stuffing my face for what felt like 48 straight hours, i decided to check out orlando's climbing gym, aiguille rock climbing center the experience of climbing in florida was definitely worthwhile - even if just indoors.

i managed to hit the gym twice and both times was pretty intrigued by the fact that everything i tried seemed much harder here than in my gym in denver. 5.8s felt like 5.10s. the difficulty variance (denver to orlando) was so great that i thought that either: a) one gym's route setter(s) didn't know what they hell he/she/they were doing or b) ratings are so incredibly subjective that, well, what i was experiencing should be expected. (an aside: i've also noticed this trend outdoors. one climbing area's ratings vary quite a bit from another - in terms of overall area difficulty.)

it all makes sense if you think about it. some types of routes will naturally be easier for you if, say, you're short or tall, have stronger legs or a stronger back, have fatter fingers or more overall flexibility, etc. in addition, considering that no two routes are alike, how can you possibly expect ratings to inform of much within such a relatively narrow window? -5.5<>5.14+ add to that the subjectivity of our human experiences, motivations, etc. and it all starts falling apart rather quickly.

so, my newbie advice: don't be beholden to the weight of ratings. just go out there and climb. while you are, don't be surprised if you rip up a 5.10+ in colorado and then get stuck on a 5.9- in orlando.