Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mungeclimber
Social climber
N. California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - May 7, 2003 - 03:49pm PT
|
Hey all (Chris too :),
You have Outer Limits labelled with a rating of 11a. Did you mean to call it 11a in the new rock and ice topo?
In the actual topo for rock and ice it designates 10d as the hardest move. Where is the 11a? Overall pump rating? Going to have a tough time justifying that with many locals that have stuck to the traditional way of rating those climbs i.e. no single move harder than the rating given- pump mostly ignored.
On the website it labels the route with 10c.
"Outer Limits 5.10c
The Cookie Cliff
Yosemite Valley, California USA"
ps- Noticed that you upped Waverly Wafer to 11a. I can't argue with that. That thing is hard.
|
|
rbreedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
I am interested in why the ratings on older, established route seem to be going up. I can see it on obscure routes that hadn't been climbed much, or if a holds break, or dirt falls off and exposes a great rest or hold. I don't object since ratings are supposed to be a collective judgement call--I am just curious why in the absence of objective changes, the rating on a well traveled route would change.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Social climber
N. California
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 7, 2003 - 04:08pm PT
|
rbreedlove,
yeah, ever since the evolution of sport climbing in California, it's been my experience that traditional "gold standard" climbs in california for ratings have been getting upgraded. Not that OL is such a climb because even back in the 80s we were told that the lower merced canyon ratings were 'stiff' for even the Valley.
|
|
rbreedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
When the crack climbs in the lower Merced canyon were being pushed into hard 5.10, a lot of discussion and relative comparisons were made by the folks putting up the climbs. No one really knew where to draw the line and call something a new grade, but none of climbers putting up those route were interested in sandbagging the ratings either. Has gym and sprot climbing changed the relative skill level of climbers. I notice that, speaking loosely, that some younger climbers have no qualms about leading a 5.12 face or thin crack, but will pester for information on a 5.10 off width.
|
|
Brutus of Wyde
climber
Old Climbers' Home, Oakland CA
|
|
Sounds like someone forgot to backscum counterpressure against the roof.
Brutus
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
Yes, ratings are going up for some old standards. Often it's because modern climbers are wicked strong at face (climbing gym by-product) and inexperienced at wide cracks, chimneys, etc.
But sometimes it's just climber polish, like the first pitch of After 6 (first pitch of Outer Limits is getting pretty dang slick too, but it was 10a in the old guide I think).
I think that Serenity should be down to 10c (or 10b), but I have small fingers and at least one sausage-fingered guy I know thinks it's solid 10d or even harder.
I often tell folks that if you could do it with boots on and it required steep jams, it'll seem "hard" for the grade, but if modern sticky rubber makes it a lot easier, it'll be "on" for the grade (ie "soft" for the grade if you'd handed Royal Robbins a pair of modern sticky rubber shoes).
But the numbers are definitely migrating upward - which is why people say a climb is "old school 5.9" (i.e. watch out!). Perhaps this is in part due to guidebook authors not wanting to lower the rating on old standards that are way easier with sticky rubber (I followed Commitment in tennis shoes and it suddenly felt like "real 5.9"). Since those numbers have been out so long, people are used to the current ratings with sticky rubber, so it'd be hard to re-rate.
That's one idea on why they're heading up...
Greg
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
My take:
%90 of the times that routes are "re-rated" to a higher grade, the very act of re-rating them is BS. Especially in the Valley, the grade of a climb is part of the history and tradition of that climb, even if that rating is generally agreed to be off by a hair.
If someone wanted to warn the young readers of a new guide book that a climb was stiff, they could just as easily add a comment in their book that it is stiff for the grade- piece of cake.
If a popular climb gets polished, the rating doesn't change because everyone says, "hey, that thing is getting polished!". What are you going to do at Owens, re-rate the whole area?
It is what it is-
It is what it was-
You have no business pushing the grade up if it ain't your route in the 1st place.
(end of rant)
|
|
Melissa
Big Wall climber
oakland, ca
|
|
Matt, FA gets the first vote on the grade, but when did they ever have the final say?
|
|
David
Trad climber
San Rafael, CA
|
|
Melissa has it right!
Haven't we been through this a million times? A rating isn't a badge of honor for the FA. The FA can name the climb whatever they want and it should be published as such but a rating isn't part of a climbs name. The FA doesn't have any more claim to the rating than you are I.
A rating is just a tool that gives the climbing community a convenienbt method for describing a climbs relative degree of difficulty. It's a given that a specific rating is subjective and that they might evolve over time. Who cares if it goes up or down a letter grade?
|
|
yo
Sport climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
This is an ages-old issue, isn't it? We'll be arguing this when we're 80 in the old climbers' home (some of us may be there already, or claim to be). And at that point, OL will be 12d or so, and kids will be climbing 5.19.
Anyway, it's impossible to pin down why these things happen or who is responsible. It certainly ain't Chris getting all wussy cuz OL spanked him. He's merely responding to a perceived consensus of some sort (OL is sandbag, Serenity probably overrated, Waverly at 10c a complete sandbag) and making corrections to inform the newbie showing up at Cookie for his first time. That's what guides are.
I'm rather fond of sandbags in some old school way, but at some point they are just stupid, if not dangerous. The old "5.8" pitch below the Narrows, for example. Give me a break. And some recent walls with new wave death pitches, rated 5.9 A2+ with barely suppressed giggles. At what point does respectable, humble sandbagging become arrogant, exclusionary bullsh#t?
PS: I too am a recovering Waverly Wafer victim. 5.10 my ass.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
I don't totally disagree, but at some point a rating has survived and lasted, even if it is percieved to be a touch flawed, and it then is part of the climb, part of the history and the tradition of the climb.
It's different from a sport climb getting down graded when others have sent it and some concencus comes into play, and if we leave it up to the author of a guide book, than don't those who have that authors's ear get to decide what the rating scale is? Who is going to speak for those who thought the rating was close enough? And suppose it was an author you didn't respect as much as you might respect Chris? What if that happens? Simpler to stick w/ the historic grade, add a parenthetic comment if you have an editorial opinion.
I am short- maybe i should get a tougher grade on the reachy climbs? Or maybe the fatter folks (who have to offwidth my chimneys) will have a thing or two to say?
Worse yet, you could get seperate camps of climbers who decide to go w/ the re-graded grade or not go w/ the re-graded grade, and then we will have to constantly hear about what this or that book says it is... what happens when there are 5 books out?
I too want to see consistency in grades, but that comes w/ time. You can't go around changing the grades every time a new guide comes out, that's BS- I don't like it. That's all I'm saying. Chris' reputation doesn't make it any different (in my opinion).
|
|
David
Trad climber
San Rafael, CA
|
|
Take a work of art like "Moby Dick".
The book...not the climb. Some people may include it on a 9th grade reading list. Others might put it on an 12th grade reading list. None of this changes the quality or nature of the work itself. It doesn't alter it's place in history. A climbs published rating doesn't seem any different to me. My $02.
|
|
Melissa
Big Wall climber
oakland, ca
|
|
"I am short- maybe i should get a tougher grade on the reachy climbs? Or maybe the fatter folks (who have to offwidth my chimneys) will have a thing or two to say?"
Exactly. Sometimes the topo says "Height dependent". I've even seen an instance where it says specifically 5.9 if you're short, 5.6 if you're tall. We all know about these climbs. Serenity is softer if you have small fingers, Sherrie's is softer if you have sausages. If you can't fit in a squeeze, well...
"What happens when there are 5 books out?"
There already are at least that many. Buy the one that you like the best.
"I too want to see consistency in grades, but that comes w/ time. You can't go around changing the grades every time a new guide comes out"
That's a total contradiction of yourself. How do the grades change over time if it's not kosher to change them?
IMO, if you want history, you should go on amazon and get yourself a copy of Roper. I did. I really enjoy reading about the old school perspective. If you are bugged by current beta including updated ratings, supertopos are not the best topos for you to buy. Stick with your Reid guide. Buy them all and get a variety of perspectives.
I was looking at the "Brave New World" article by Bridwell yesterday and found it fascinating that he referred to Outer Limits as a "thin crack". Standards change.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
Sometimes the topo says "Height dependent". I've even seen an instance where it says specifically 5.9 if you're short, 5.6 if you're tall. We all know about these climbs. Serenity is softer if you have small fingers...
And that wouldn't be an example of the parenthetic editorial comment I was advocating?
"I too want to see consistency in grades, but that comes w/ time. You can't go around changing the grades every time a new guide comes out"
That's a total contradiction of yourself. How do the grades change over time if it's not kosher to change them?
What I meant was that over time the information deseminates (i.e. everyone knows about Sherries and Serenity and Ahab). That happens when the grades are stable over time.
I also think it's a shame that an "old school" area that is known for stiff climbs at the grade might somehow average out w/ areas that have "diluted" the YDS scale. Doesn't seem like it should be up to 20 and 30 yr olds to decide that. I wonder what the Bird would say...
|
|
Melissa
Big Wall climber
oakland, ca
|
|
I wonder what the Bird would say...
He got to set the standard when he was in his 20's and 30's. Now it's Chris' turn. If Bridwell writes another article about present day grades and standards, I'll read what he has to say about it too. However, if he tries to tell me that Outer Limits is a thin crack again, I think I'll stick with Chris' version of reality. You can buy Bridwell's verion if you prefer it.
Why should only the locals get to know about Sherrie's or Serenity?
Why do you care if I feel like Outer Limits is really a 5.12 and start telling the whole world that it is. Either they'll climb it and agree with me that it's 5.12, or they'll climb it and think I'm a stupid wank who's wantonly inflating grades.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
He got to set the standard when he was in his 20's and 30's. Now it's Chris' turn.
I still think it's a poor precident to set, and you are making quite a leap when you equate the relavance of the opinion of whoever does the FA w/ an author of really nice user friendly guide books, no matter how many times they have summited the Captain...
Speaking of the Bird, if After Six is 5.7, how can Braille Book be 5.8?
Again, an editorial comment that the route is stiff at the grade will keep the info from being somehow guarded by the locals(?), and the whole mess would be less of a mess.
|
|
David
Trad climber
San Rafael, CA
|
|
How is adding lots of editorial notes next to each grade going to create "less of a mess"?
It's just a difference of philosophy. You nailed it when you used the term "user friendly". Chris is definitely trying to make user friendly guidebooks. I don't think he finds any shame in that fact. I get the idea that he think of grades as little more than a type of trail marker. They're a way to point climbers in the direction they want to go. I find this attitude totally refreshing and humble.
If you really think that ratings are best left comprised of some mirky combination of ego, history and partial truths than his guidebooks are just not the right style for you. That's not the end of the world is it?
Yes...I know, I'm a ST homer.
|
|
malabarista
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
I think it's makes sense to rerate climbs where beginners could conceivably epic. After Six, for example, is many climber's first or second lead. That first pitch is definitely at least 5.7 in difficulty. 5.7 -That's no big deal to most climbers, but to a beginner, that one point from 5.6 to 5.7 might cause an epic. If you already lead 5.10's and are worried because a climb was bumped to 5.11a from 10C, I'd say you have more cause to be annoyed. Experienced climbers should be more likely to research a route to find out if they are capable of leading it than newbies.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
Are you at all familiar w/ John Sherman's take on the evolution of "V" grades from the "B" grades? Taking the attitude that grades can be changed retrospectively will only lead to grade dilution. It's like erosion or any other slippery slope issue, it's hard to control once it begins. Whatever, it won't start or end because of what gets typed here.
David- not so many routes require said notes.
|
|
Melissa
Big Wall climber
oakland, ca
|
|
"Whatever, it won't start or end because of what gets typed here."
Nope, but I can put off finishing my work for another hour arguing with you about it. ;-)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!