Critical Force: Lattice vs Science
I compared the data from Giles 2021 paper with what I found on Lattice's website and the differences are, well, weird. Can someone make sense of it? Is the Lattice data outdated or which of the two makes more sense?
I'm trying to figure out if my CF is at a level where it should be or not, but the data is confusing me. My CF is about 58%BW on 2 hands. According to the paper that would correlate with having 7b/+ as highest grade, whereas in Lattice's world I could climb 8c I guess?
I compared both in an excel:
What is going on? The difference is HUGE?!
This is where I got the Lattice values from:
And this is from the Giles paper (I did the grade conversion for you):
As background info, I did the repeater test and here are my results:
I've climbed around 85 7a's outdoors, a couple 7c's and one 8a.
I think comparing the CF data to "highest grade achieved" also skews it because some people project hard while others may not. It makes more sense to look at on-sight grade probably, or to the grade you can usually do within a couple tries / one session.
The results from the paper align more with reality, I usually get pumped out hard in 7b/+. Of course that is looking at the average. But for 7b/+ with Lattice's data I would be in the upper end. I would not describe myself as a climber with good endurance, I even get pumped on 6c's.
Can anyone explain what I'm missing, why are these 2 datasets showing such different values?