Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 78 of total 78 in this topic |
Mick Ryan
Trad climber
The Peaks
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 30, 2012 - 08:49am PT
|
I've read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_%28climbing%29
But one question on the UKClimbing.com forums is:
Is the YDS 5.10a, 5.11d, 5.12a etc...a grade for the overall difficulty of the climb or a grade for the hardest move?
Also who introduced the letter grades, 5.10a, 5.10b etc
And who introduced the protection rating: R, R/X, R etc
Mick
|
|
Vulcan
Sport climber
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 09:10am PT
|
and is it for the on-sight?
|
|
Srbphoto
climber
Kennewick wa
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 09:21am PT
|
Beware! If, let's say, 20 people reply to this you are going to have at least 23 answers.
|
|
justthemaid
climber
Jim Henson's Basement
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 09:24am PT
|
Oy... YDS ratings...where do we start? ;(
|
|
justthemaid
climber
Jim Henson's Basement
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 09:40am PT
|
OK. I'll give one a shot. It's true you will get a lot of differing opinions though.
Is the YDS 5.10a, 5.11d, 5.12a etc...a grade for the overall difficulty of the climb or a grade for the hardest move?
*Generally* (but not always), this grade is for the hardest move, not a reflection of overall difficulty. A climb can have one 5.9 move, or every move is 5.9 and it's still 5.9. (Kinda dumb IMO BTW). Problem is that ratings are subject to regional and subjective interpretation. PG/R/X ratings are indications of danger-levels - if there is lack of protection or ground-fall potential.
I can't remember who started adding R/X ratings and the a/b/c/d/thing. Maybe someone else knows.
|
|
Gene
climber
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 09:41am PT
|
Is the YDS 5.10a, 5.11d, 5.12a etc...a grade for the overall difficulty of the climb or a grade for the hardest move?
Trick question!!!
5.10a, 5.11d, 5.12a etc... are ratings. Grades are I through VI.
Real answer - See Roper's Climber's Guide to Yosemite, Page 21.
My $0.02 - Originally the ratings were meant to describe the most difficult move on a pitch. The trend now reflects the overall difficulty of the pitch.
5.9 is often much more difficult than 5.10.
Bridwell created the first four letters of the alphabet.
g
|
|
rincon
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 09:43am PT
|
Hardest move.
|
|
handsome B
Gym climber
SL,UT
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:03am PT
|
If you think hardest move, then Indian Creek guides need to be republished with French ratings.
|
|
Peter Haan
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:42am PT
|
Gene, just upstream here, is absolutely right on all three points.
The YDS rating system began for the hardest move but has now grown to encompass more than that, if not entirely clearly. Obviously a pitch with all 5.9 moves is not 5.9 nor has it ever been rated 5.9, actually, but much higher. There is a kind of theory implicit in the system posing "what does the hardest move feel like in the midst of the lead"?. Really modern climbs have proved to usually be far more sustained than the old trad lines of forty years ago and so the problem for the leader in the midst of a highly sustained pitch is being addressed by this change in the original definition the YDS was using of single hardest move.
Reeds triple direct second pitch is obviously not 5.9 anywhere in particular but is a 5.9 lead in the context of all those zillions of 5.6-5.7-ish moves all linked together--- the lead grows in difficulty as all those awkward-leaning moves add up. It can spit out a 5.10 leader even sometimes and yet in the analysis, doesn't even have any real 5.9 in it.
Crack-a-go-go is known as a sandbag at 5.11b (sometimes rated 5.11c) because there are in fact true-blue 5.11b or c single moves on it, especially the lower crux, but meanwhile there are loads of only slightly easier moves surrounding those real honest-to-goodness 5.11b/c moves, forming a much more formidable problem for the ground-up leader. The two distinct cruxes are both zones of very hard moves and spots where there are specific very hard moves within---tricky and unique moves. Climbers who can climb at this rating often do not make this climb without hang dogging or maybe even lamer tactics. It might be 5.11c in specific difficulty but as a lead might well be approaching 5.12. It might be wiser to up its rating.
So, yes the YDS has some paradoxes to it but has served tremendously well. The hope in both rating for the hardest move and meanwhile somewhat contradictorily rating overall lead-pitch difficulty, is to both to warn the unsuspecting of real inherent problems in the lead context while bestowing on the lead its defining rating ---a two-pronged approach that at times may seem misplaced or in error.
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 11:04am PT
|
Rating usually reflects the hardest move...
unless that move can be cheated or glossed over,which sometimes occurs.
eg. If route is 5.4 with one 5.9 move it might be a 5.6.
This is somewhat rare but can occur.
Sometimes a route might be a long stretch of 5.9 in which case a description might also contain the word "sustained" as modifier.
A face climb might be 5.11a which you can climb at your highest level if your balance and finger crimping skills are good.
However the same climber may not be able to get up a 5.9 crack which requires much more forearm and calf strength.
Europe should just switch over to YDS. It would be easier... for us.
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 11:07am PT
|
You can go back and read what Roper put in the old guidebook (was there another with fifth class climbs that detailed the YDS including 5.10 or harder climbs before Roper?), the "standards" for the grade, etc., and that would be accurate for routes that referenced that standard and inaccurate for routes that used a different one.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 11:23am PT
|
This should help you pasty dwellers of the sodden isle:
5.8 = Not that severe, nor hard.
5.9 = Hard enough to put a fair lady in distress, but rarely severe
5.10a = Very very severe, might upset your delicate constitution, guvner.
5.10d = So severe your avg queen's subject wishes they'd stayed at the chips shop.
5.11b = Hard as nails
5.11d = EXTREEEEEMMM, but only level 1 EXTREEEM.
5.12c = E12, harder and more severe than a 1970s houligan on matchday on the high road headed to White Hart Lane
5.13c = Does it matter? You limey wankers ain't gettin up this anytime soon, and it you did it would be rated E17 and you would pretend this 17' gritstone glorified boulder problem was R/X.
|
|
yo
climber
Mudcat Spire
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 11:41am PT
|
lol @ elcap
American grades tend to feel sandbagged due to the lack of any decent blood sausage in these pissant American "supermarkets."
Also, I've done Cenotaph Corner and thought it pretty light, really no more than E4 17m ≠ C3PO. And that's wet.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 11:44am PT
|
as with any climbing rating system, the YDS is subjective and based on consensus, at this point probably most similar to the Australian "open" rating system.
The history is important, and the fact that climbing is something like 40+ years along since the most recent changes to the system had been made might indicate a time to reflect on what it has become.
In general, the question that is most often asked when grading an FA is "how hard is that pitch compared with ..." where a number of candidate pitches are offered up in comparison. Now the definition of "hard" depends on the FA team at that time, for instance, when Eric and I first did Dream Easy we rated it 5.8 (for all but the final pitch, which we didn't do on that first outing). Perhaps we had had a good year and this climb, at the end of a good year, didn't seem that difficult to us. I've gone back and decided it was harder than I remember, and Eric, based on his own evaluation on climbing it again, and the many voices of those who have climbed it, upgraded it to 5.9.
Those "many voices" are important as they are a part of the consensus, but the many voices who established the current ratings are a part of the pitch comparison.
As far as a technical grade the consensus rating may overlook the fact, as Peter and JTM point out above, that the climb may not have any single move at the consensus rating. ECiYA has pointed out in other threads that a climb like Ahab has a technical singularity to it that nearly defies rating, so it is hard to obtain a consensus, Roger Breedlove pointed out that Frank Sacherer, of the FFA of Ahab, rated it at the top of the grade at that time, 5.9, which it is certainly harder than, but how to rate a climb with an OW sequence that is not found elsewhere?
In the Valley, this brings up another important historical note, that the maximum rating of 5.9 that persisted through the middle 1960s capped the ratings of many climbs that were more difficult. Sacherer's FFAs were all rated 5.9 when he did them, that was a project completed in 1964 or so... when modern ratings were suggested for many of these climbs (e.g. the second pitch of Reed's Direct), in the 1970s, the community of Valley climbers objected to the "upgrading" mostly on the basis of tradition. Even with that reluctance, those climbs span the rating system from 5.9 to 5.10d, and even at the high end might have pushed into 5.11a except that Sacherer probably didn't have 5.11 technique.
The legendary bite of some Valley 5.9's has to do with this transition from a grading system which was capped at 5.9, and the one that replaced it, with no upper bound. All the difficult climbs done up to that time had to be re-rated into the new system, and it probably wasn't quite done accurately, as the community of climbers able to actually accomplish those climbs was limited.
A guide book like Meyer's "Yellow Guide" took the list from Bridwell's important article (which introduced the letter sub-grades) and provided suggested examples of routes "at grade." In my mind that is a very important, I'd say crucial, part of any guidebook. It introduces the newly arrived climber to the local grades and provides a way of directly explaining the local rating system in the only meaningful way, by example.
Any other intellectual logic to the system is really moot, the list provides a Rosetta Stone that translates the local ratings directly into climber experience.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 01:24pm PT
|
First of all, isn't it the TDS - Tahquitz Decimal System - not the YDS? As it was mostly invented in Tahquitz.
Second, it's a riddle, inside a mystery, inside an enigma.
Third, yer gonna die!
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 01:45pm PT
|
Second, it's a riddle, inside a mystery, inside an enigma. Wrapped in butcher paper.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 01:54pm PT
|
...and tied with a bowline.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 01:56pm PT
|
Like the various German, French, Spanish, Italian and UIAA grading scales, the YDS system is ultimately derived from Wilo Welzenbach's I-VI system popularized in the interwar years. The I-VI was adopted from period public school grading systems.
Immigrants from Europe, Americans climbing abroad, and imported instruction manuals all helped to give American climbers a vague sense of grading in Europe. The Welzenbach system worked pretty well for the kinds of rock (mostly limestones) then serving as the proving ground for the cutting edge of alpinism in the Tirol and South Tirol. The system translated poorly to Sierra granite, though.
For the most part, Sierra granite simply doesn't offer the sort of formation you can find in the Dolomites, with hundreds or even thousands of feet of steep, heavily featured routes. Sierra granite tended to resolve into broken, scrappy buttresses or else steep, clean sweeps of chunks with crack systems. The Sierras just dont have many of the kinds of long Dolomite classics that helped to make the Welzenbach system work. (You can find long, steep classic 5.3 jug hauls in the Dolos and Kaisergebirge-- a long route of that difficulty in the Sierra is usually a friction slab.)
Sierra climbers used the system differently-- Where the Euros used "I" to describe climbing involving actual technical movement, for the Californians, "I" referred simply to walking, while "VI" came to refer to anything involving what we now call direct aid. That left "III," "IV" and "V" to cover the span of difficulty represented by I-VI in the European systems. In practice, 3 meant climbes done ropeless, 4 meant climbs done with ropes and anchors but not much in the way of running belays, and 5 meant climbs difficult enough to demand a fair bit of pitoncraft. ( It's not entirely clear why the Californians adapted the system like that-- difference in rock type doubtless has some effect. My guess, though, is that it was driven by the needs of the Sierra Club High Camp and similar mass outing systems in which organizers felt a need to differentiate outing objectives in ways that included simple hikers.)
Of course, by the end of WW2, it was pretty clear that three grades weren't enough to describe differences between the easiest and hardest technical rock climbs. It was the folks at Tahquitz, mostly from local SIerra Club Sections, who went ahead and subdivided the "V" grade into decimals: 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, etc. From the beginning, the move/enduro difficulty question was built into the system. The "hardest" route then at Tahquitz, The Open Book (5.9), probably did not (and doesn't) have a move on it that is 5.9. The difficulty reflected the demands of piecing together a series of easier but strenuous layback moves while hammering in pitons for pro.
The older Roman Numeral I-VI remained in place, but used now for categorizing overall length/seriousness of objectives-- VI was now reserved for multi-day technical climbs like The Nose or other new long routes, while 5-whatever categorized the technical difficulty. And in the seventies, Yosemite climbers (who shamelessly appropriated the Tahquitz system and called it their own) helped to pioneer the weird American opening of the closed system by using 5.10, 5.11, and then (Bridwell seems to have been the leader in this), further letter subdivisions: 10a, 10b, etc.
There was never anything like a resolution of the tension between move/enduro difficulties in assessing difficulty. Different areas worked out their own local habits. In many areas, for instance, if the hardest technical moves are at the beginning of the climb, they may not appear at all in the route's actual grade. A route with a single hard move, with overhead pro, with good rest before and after, may end up with a slightly easier grade than one with lots of sustained, easier moves.
And as protection systems changed, so did the means of differentiating routes. The old system for the Sierras was replaced by that generic decimal 5th class but with added seriousness ratings "PG, R, X) derived from the MPOA Ratings for commercial films.
The Euros had their own growing pains-- the French used one version of the Welzenbach for Fontainebleau and another for roped routes. The Germans used one system in Bavaria and another in Dresden. And Many areas by the 1960s had gone to open-ended and even subdivided variations (6a, 6b, etc.)
By the time Roper was writing his guidebooks, the basic history was so foggy and forgotten that he could write as if the UIAA system (a formal version of the original Welzenbach system) was a foreign object and the YDS system had sprung naturally from the California soil.
The Brits, of course, are in another world entirely, as so often is the case. The Brits had introduced a system back in the late 19th century, long before the Germans-- Hard, DIfficult, Very Difficult, Severe, etc. Obviously, that system was going to go anywhere in places that didn't speak English. But the Brits stuck with it, despite the obvious problems, until finally, around mid-century, feeling compelled to adapt still another (Francophile) variant of the Welzenbach system to create the lovely hybrid grading format that has become as inexplicable a part of British nationalism as French Fry sandwiches.
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 02:13pm PT
|
Mick, the Bridwell article that Peter or Ed referenced is "The Innocent, the Ignorant, and the Insecure" and it marked the first occasion that the proposed adaptation of the a/b/c/d grades appeared in print. Seminal reading for anyone attempting to do what you're doing.
It was published in the 1973 ish of Ascent. I'm guessing the fact that it did apppear in print by '73 means it was already a functioning system under development in Yosemite by '71 or '72. There are plenty of people posting to this forum who were active in the Valley at this time who could probably expand on that.
The YDS has no mystery for me and makes perfect sense. I rarely feel sandbagged, and when you do run across a sandbag it's obvious and you take it with a chuckle. I think that across the planet, people understand perfectly whatever grading system they grew up with, and that any other system will remain inscrutable until they travel to Australia or Britan or France or wherever and experience the system firsthand. I've been scrutinizing the British "S/VS/HVS" stuff and the whole "E6 6c" or "E4 5b" or whatever thing and it's still a litle baffling, but I bet after a couple of weeks climbing British rock I'd have it dialed.
I think the biggest difference between the British system and the YDS is that we have dispensed with the E grade, and stuck with a single techinical grade like 5.7, 5.9, 5.10c, etc. For example, as was pointed out above, I bet if the second pitch of Reed's were it Britan it would have a simple tecnical grade, you know, 4c or 5a whatever, but an E grade higher than you would typically see on a 5a. Does that make sense? We just built the "extremity" of the pitch into our thinking: it's either gonna be really sustained, really technical, or both.
All those grade conversion charts are sorta hopeless. Especially ones that convert YDS grades into V Grades for bouldering.
What I know of the British system came from asking question of American climbers who'd done routes. It was like, Oh, Prophet of Doom is a really technical 11d" or "The Thing is a super burly 11b", stuff like that. Then I could start to grasp it.
Good luck!
EDIT: what Kerwin said. Kerwin, aren't you supposed to be grading papers or tongue-lashing undergrads or something? Frikken academia.
|
|
Mick Ryan
Trad climber
The Peaks
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 30, 2012 - 02:46pm PT
|
Did I have to email Chris to get someone to delete that idiot Lockers posts.
Thank you to all the thoughtful replys, just reading them.
|
|
Mick Ryan
Trad climber
The Peaks
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 30, 2012 - 02:49pm PT
|
He/she (locker that is) is quite funny though. Is he/she on medication/living in a home? etc
|
|
Alan Rubin
climber
Amherst,MA.
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 02:55pm PT
|
In answer to the 2 "historical" questions. As stated above, the "letter ratings" were first introduced "in print" in the Bridwell Ascent article referred to above, though he and his crew had been informally experimenting with them in the Valley for a couple of years before that.In other regions subdivisions of the harder grades were (and still are) often done with "+" and "-" symbols. And for many of the same reasons discussed above the "+"'s in particular, often were (and still are in some places)warnings of potential sandbags--hence the infamous 5.9+s of New Hampshire. The "G","PG","R", and "X" protection rating (or dangerousness rating) system was first introduced in print by Jim Erickson in his Eldorado Canyon (Colorado) Guidebook, also published in the early '70s. It was humorously derived from the then recently introduced US system of rating the "appropriateness" of movies for various age groups.
|
|
ground_up
Trad climber
mt. hood /baja
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 03:08pm PT
|
Tami....you always have a way with putting it in great
perspective.
|
|
YoungGun
climber
North
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 03:52pm PT
|
Did I have to email Chris to get someone to delete that idiot Lockers posts.
Ooooh someone woke up without their sense of humor this morning! Did you actually e-mail Cmac about Locker?? LOL!! He's a Taco icon, AND owner of Stoned Resoles.
|
|
Gene
climber
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 03:54pm PT
|
Ooooh someone woke up without their sense of humor this morning! Did you actually e-mail Cmac about Locker?? LOL!! He's a Taco icon, AND owner of Stoned Resoles.
He's also the newest member of the UKclimbing.com forum.
How cool is that?
g
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 04:17pm PT
|
aren't you supposed to be
scheduling meetings, writing letters of reference, uploading docs to various websites, waiting for them to crash, trying different browsers and doc conversions, watching them crash, running email, starting the process all over and so on?
why, yes.
i also need to have a good, clear capsule summary of the history of grading systems for the book. so taking a rough swing in this thread is actually pretty helpful.
i have a ways to go, still.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 04:22pm PT
|
"First of all, isn't it the TDS - Tahquitz Decimal System - not the YDS? As it was mostly invented in Tahquitz."
Thank you!
|
|
John Mac
Trad climber
Littleton, CO
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 04:25pm PT
|
Bridwell introduced the a,b,c,d system if I remember history correctly.
|
|
TwistedCrank
climber
Ideeho-dee-do-dah-day boom-chicka-boom-chicka-boom
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 04:52pm PT
|
You can't define it, but you know it when you see it.
Like porn.
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 06:14pm PT
|
i also need to have a good, clear capsule
Jeez Kerwin I haven't seen one of those since they threw Owsley in jail. But lemme know if you have any luck.
Have the five chapters on me been galley proofed yet?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 06:46pm PT
|
I think the biggest difference between the British system and the YDS is that we have dispensed with the E grade, and stuck with a single techinical grade like 5.7, 5.9, 5.10c, etc. For example, as was pointed out above, I bet if the second pitch of Reed's were it Britan it would have a simple tecnical grade, you know, 4c or 5a whatever, but an E grade higher than you would typically see on a 5a. Does that make sense? We just built the "extremity" of the pitch into our thinking: it's either gonna be really sustained, really technical, or both.
No, I don't that's right at all.
(But I could be wrong.)
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 07:16pm PT
|
The American Alpine Club has a concise grade comparison chart on their web site.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 07:46pm PT
|
Ratings are like ants.
There are so many of them.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 07:49pm PT
|
The Brits are fighting back, I daresay.
How'd that work out for ya'll back in 1775?
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 08:14pm PT
|
At Tahquitz, where the rating system was developed, you still have 5.1s and 5.2s that mean something.
If they were climbed today they'd all be 5.6.
|
|
Gene
climber
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 08:25pm PT
|
If the YDS were initiated today, 5.0 to 5.4 would probably be one rating, 5.5 to 5.7 another, with 5.8 and 5.9 being distinct.
Since I have not much experience >5.9, is the step between, say 5.10b and 5.10c about the same difference as 5.8 to 5.9? I'm knott talking old school (Sacherer et al) 5.9.
g
|
|
chill
climber
between the flat part and the blue wobbly thing
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 08:53pm PT
|
At least one Brit seems to be arguing that we are too stupid to figure out our own grading system:
"The Americans themselves havn't a clue how their own system works either in theory or in practice (this has also been obvious from my own conversations with them). There are occasional pathetic attempts to defend it by the distracting tactic of ridiculing the UK system, betraying a woeful ignorance of UK climbing and the UK system.
The sad thing is that the OP made a perfectly reasonable request for an explanation which he won't get for the simple reason that the YDS is broken and needs replacing - I suspect that recalibration and redefining would only add to the confusion".
It would be best if this fellow (Robert Durran) never climb in the States. He might get on something incorrectly graded and god know what would happen then.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 09:40pm PT
|
if the system was invented today it would be the Australian system which is the only one that makes sense...
all rating systems are subjective
to argue otherwise (whether you're a US or UK climber) is foolish... but then again...
the only two grades that make sense,
due to John Gill:
can -- B0
can't - B1
nothing else really matters
|
|
R.B.
Trad climber
47N 122W
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:03pm PT
|
YDS = You gonna Die for Sure
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:04pm PT
|
There are probably only a couple dozen climbs rated 5.3 and below in the entire country.
Never been to the Gunks, eh?
Curt
|
|
R.B.
Trad climber
47N 122W
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:07pm PT
|
-or- Camelback Mtn in Phoenix, eh Curt?
|
|
martygarrison
Trad climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:12pm PT
|
It could be that the rating should be based on the hardest move, but I can think of many climbs in the Valley where this isn't the case. The Cringe doesn't have any 5.12 moves but it sure is 5.12. Likewise with Meat Grinder and the Enduro pitch on Astroman. Lot's of other pitches that are rated 5.8 based on the hardest move that can feel like 10a. Steck-Salathe comes to mind.
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:18pm PT
|
R.B.,
I think anyplace with a relatively long history of climbing will have a good number of routes with "easier" ratings. I just took a quick look and my 1980 Williams Gunks guide lists 45 climbs as 5.3 or under and my 1979 Wolfe guide to Joshua Tree lists 24 routes as F4 (5.2 or less.)
Curt
|
|
rick d
climber
ol pueblo, az
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:19pm PT
|
definitions of *easier* ratings
YDS is superseded by Granite Mountain ratings --which are more conservative than either the Gunks or Seneca and may compare to Devil's Lake, but are easier than Carderock traditional ratings)
5.6 is Weeny Roast
5.7 is Hassayampa
5.8 is Magnolia
5.9(-)is Easy Chair
5.9 is Said and Done
5.10 is Jump Back Jack
of course, 5.9 A.2 CDN rockies grade is a bag.
It should be hardest move only. Let the downratings begin!
rick "everything's cake"
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:32pm PT
|
At Tahquitz, where the rating system was developed, you still have 5.1s and 5.2s that mean something.
not many, and not many good ones, either. north rib, but hardly anyone does it. white maiden is great. and fingertip traverse is pretty cool. after that, it's a world of gullies.
curt is right-- the gunks is the one premiere site in the country i can name that has the sort of concentration of quality, steep, technical routes in the lower-to-mid 5th range that is common at many of the period european limestone centers like the dolomites.
if there had been a lot more areas like the gunks, americans might have ended up with a more literal translation of welzenbach's 1-6 system.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:35pm PT
|
There is great confusion over the UK adjectival system, and not just from beginner UK climbers, it is quite complex, having at least 3 variables, sometimes four all interplaying.
But yes, once you understand it, usually through having lots of climbing experience in the UK, it does make sense.
I like it, it's quite unique.
lol
you have a queen
|
|
Mick Ryan
Trad climber
The Peaks
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 30, 2012 - 10:49pm PT
|
Your address Russ, I emailed you, I skyped Sue...no address.. I have DVD.
M
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:57pm PT
|
welzenbach's
Kerwin, is the Welzenbach you're referring to the same guy as Willo Welzenbach, the great German ice climber from the 20's or 30's with the withered right arm?
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 11:32pm PT
|
In my learning years, '68-'73, the Gunks gradings set my own thinking. Almost all routes had a short crux. The YDS in use there was too successful. Devil's Lake was next and there some routes had long cruxy sections. Then came Yosemite and it made little sense to rate cracks by hardest move.
So, you need to reserve your judgement when first climbing at a new type of cliff. As long as bigger numbers(or more emphatic adjectives) mean harder, on average, no real brainpower is needed, just a couple of trial runs will explain the system for you.
Of course, you need to know what different kinds of climbs are like and what your strengths and weaknesses are.
The best system is to form an impression of the ability of other climbers relative to your own. Then if you wonder whether you can do a route, you just need to find out who has done it previously. Note that this system may require an idea of other climbers' character as well as their technical ability.
Guidebook ratings do help tell me which climbs I should probably not consider doing.
I was surprised in South Africa, after doing a route rated 23 (after the Australians) and being asked what it felt like in YDS. Then we looked at the guide and the conversion table therein agreed. I think YDS works well.
|
|
Srbphoto
climber
Kennewick wa
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2012 - 11:42pm PT
|
Mick - I told you so!
|
|
Mick Ryan
Trad climber
The Peaks
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 31, 2012 - 12:01am PT
|
you were right...
But this has been very illuminating, thanks to all..
Night,
Mick
|
|
R.B.
Trad climber
47N 122W
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2012 - 12:20am PT
|
The "class" system was as an adoption of the existing Sierra Club Rock Climbing Section (SCRCS). In 1947 a unified grading system was used at Tahquitz in the Second edition of “A Climber’s Guide to Tahquitz Rock.”
The Third edition of the same guide, published in 1962 and edited by Chuck Wilts, was updated to reflect many of the contributions to climbing by the Yosemite legends of the first ascents and consensus of the climbs at Tahquitz of Royal Robbins, Tom Frost, Bert Turney, and Bill Feuerer, et. Al.
(Each Class of climbing above 4th class is differentiated into a scale of 0 being easiest and (originally 9) being hardest.) As free climbing skill levels progressed, and the climbing revolution hit Yosemite in the 60’s, the “letter” designations were adopted for the “harder” (meaning greater than 5.9) and alas, the birth of 5.10, i.e., 5.10a is harder than 5.9.
Thereafter, because of the recognized newer First Ascents beginning to push and exceed 5.9, the YDS system was devised by further modifying the SCRCS which differentiated the harder (greater than) 5.9 grades by designating a letter grade to distinguish easier or harder climbs of the same grade in an area. The letter grades are typically relative to the specific area per se. (and explains why local standards, such as a 5.10a at Yosemite may be (is) a 5.9 at Granite Mountain, AZ.) And of course, the ratings keep being pushed against an open-ended scale, with the max being now 5.14d or whatever!
In 1981, Jim Waugh published the first guidebook to Phoenix “A Climbers Guide to Central Arizona.” The ratings used in this guidebook used the +/- system instead of the abcd system for the 5th class ratings and aid ratings.
So in the late 1980’s, I proposed a morphed rating system known as the Modified Yosemite Decimal System, which combined the +/- system with the a,b,c,d system for 5th class and Aid climbing.
But, in my opinion, it was ludicrous to rate a 5.9 with an “A thru D” letter, instead: Anything less than 5.10a uses a + /– (plus-minus) system. Therefore 5.9+ is one notch below 5.10a, etc.
The + /- system is still fair game for aid climb ratings as well.
So, the “Modified Yosemite Decimal System” is a combination of several rating methods used in the western USA. I adopted this system on my maps (guides): The Granite Mountain Topo and the El Capitan Route Map.
Here is RBs' Modified YDS (the lower 5th class grades get a +/- and the 5.10 or greater get “ABCD”)
3rd Class (you are free soloing something that could bust you up if you fall – but you’d probably survive a fall)
4th Class (exposed but pretty easy, doesn’t really warrant rope or equipment, except if you are way off the deck)
5th Class
5.0 through 5.5 (no plus or minus)
5.6-, 5.6, 5.6+
thru
5.9-, 5.9, 5.9+
---the dividing line---
5.10a, b, c, or d – thru –5.13a
(Personally, I believe there is nothing harder than 5.13a, because above that grade, odds are you probably rehearsed a climb, top roped it, previewed it, and/or pulled on or weighted a piece of gear while leading it -- which all makes it A0 “A-Zero”)
Bouldering:
B0 (doable but hard - many people have done it)
B1 (really hard but has been done by a few others)
B2 (only a handful of people have ever done it or ever will!)
(the +/- is used to denote area relative difficulty similar to above)
6th Class – AKA “Aid Climbing” designated with an “A” and a relative placement difficulty from 0 – 5 using a (+/-) to differentiate relative difficulty of placement and also relative to other similar ratings in the area:
A0 Climber pulls or weights a piece for upward progress, can be considered Mixed Free/Aid AKA "French Free"
A1 You could drop a Mack Truck on this equipment placement AKA “Bomber”
A2 A little more awkward but still solid equipment placement
A3 Can be a little sketchy but a solid piece every 30-50 feet (generally)
A4 Multiple Sketchy pieces in a row, your good if you get a bomber piece in 50+ feet
A5 You may as well be free soloing with a rope, because nothing is going to hold except maybe the
Belay.
|
|
Mick Ryan
Trad climber
The Peaks
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 31, 2012 - 09:23am PT
|
I'm in upstate NY Tami.
|
|
John Butler
Social climber
SLC, Utah
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2012 - 10:35am PT
|
you probably rehearsed a climb, top roped it, previewed it, and/or pulled on or weighted a piece of gear while leading it -- which all makes it A0 “A-Zero”
RB, I think you just described my life...
:-)
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2012 - 02:35pm PT
|
Hi Mick,
Your question on which logic, the hardest move versus overall difficulty, is used in the YDS is not commonly agreed, based on nothing more than the posts and links on this thread.
While a system could be based on either set of rules, at least from the early 1960s the YDS system has been based on the rating for the hardest section, not hardest move. This way of thinking about ratings is not meaningful to climbers until the climbing gets hard: nobody calls a sustained 5.3 pitch anything other than 5.3. As such, I don't think that climbers in the 50s had much need for sustained difficulty ratings. (There may be a different history in Tahquitz in the 1950s with regard to sustained ratings, so I'll only refer to the Valley.)
With this line of thinking, I suppose it would be strictly correct that originally the YDS was based on hardest move logic. However, once there was a need for ratings based on the hardest section, once the climbing was both hard and sustained, the evidence shows hardest section logic was adopted as a natural course—there doesn’t seem to have been any point of discussion, at least in Roper’s guide book. Up until about 1963, most Valley climbers started nailing when the free climbing became hard. (One has only to look at Frank Sacherer's stellar run of FFAs in 1963-65 to see the truth in this: all those climbs he did free were originally nailed.) In this sense, ratings for sustained climbing have always been part of the guide book ratings in Yosemite. This is contrary to what is in the Wikipedia article and in several of the posts upthread.
The first piece of evidence for this is stated explicitly in Roper’s 1964 guide. Dave posted a scan of page 29, but it is worth listing the elements that Steve states should be included in the rating.
1. The difficulty on the most difficult technical free-climbing section
2. The most difficult aid section
3. The strenuousness of the climb
4. The Continuity of the climb
5. The mental problems encountered (such as lack of protection, loose rock, exposure)
6. The length of the route
7. The approach and descent required
8. The weather
Steve adds that there are probably several more.
The YDS was at that time made of three numbers:
One for the most difficult technical free-climbing section (Class 1-5)
One for the most difficult technical direct-aid section (Class 6)
One for overall difficulty (Grade)
In every instance when Steve could have stated "hardest move", he instead states "hardest section." This is about as clear as it gets that, at least in 1963-64 when Steve was writing his first guide, the YDS incorporated logic for the higher ratings for sustained sections. The next piece of evidence is to look at the actual ratings that were applied to routes in the Valley when hard, sustained pitches became more common place. The second pitch of Reeds is the most obvious example, as Peter points out in his post. (I think that Peter makes the same argument as I do here.) I have tried to reconstruct climbs in the 50s and early 60s that were hard and sustained, but there are not many. In 1956, The Arrowhead Arête, first climbed by Mark Powell, was considered the most sustained 5th class climb in the Valley but it is 5.8, when the highest standard was then 5.9. In 1960, Pratt climbed The Crack of Doom, which he rated 5.10. Maybe someone can remember if this was a pitch rating—-lots of unprotected 5.9—-or a single move. For the most part, sustained 5th class climbing did not become common place until Sacherer and Pratt focused on all-free ascents in 1964, just about the time that Steve was writing his guide book.
From memory, this is also the way that ratings were applied to aid climbing with a clear sense that A5 was what you got if you linked a bunch of A4 placements.
In Bridwell’s 1973 article in Ascent, introducing the a,b,c,d system to 5.10 and above ratings, he clearly articulates the newness, and in his opinion the stupidity, of hardest move ratings. In his take no prisoners style:
The most common motivation behind downrating is protection of the downrater's self-image. Avoid the ridicule of having one's climb downrated. Downrate first and be safe. This type of game causes its most dedicated players to fool even themselves. Move rating is an outgrowth of this syndrome. Breaking a pitch into individual moves and rating the pitch by the hardest move is nonsense. A hundred foot lieback with no moves over 5.9, but none under 5.8, and with no place to rest, is not a 5.9 pitch!
I don’t really understand where the notion that YDS is based on hardest move logic comes from. I don't know if it is a holdover from someone who believed that the guide book writers had it wrong or if it is a newer construction without any historical basis. I personally have never seen any justification for this idea on a historical basis, although I have heard lots of arguments from individuals. I can remember that in the late 60s and early 70s, the Steck-Salathe was widely considered to be just barely 5.9 since there didn’t seem to be any moves harder than 5.8, but we all agreed with Roper's 5.9. (The rock has changed since and there are now sections that are considered 5.10 in themselves.)
Part of the arguments about ratings are based on climbers not being comfortable with consensus driven comparative ratings; it all seems so squishy and there are always quotes from famous climbers disputing the ratings in the guide book for particular climbs.
In the early 1960’s, Frank Sacherer had a reputation for under rating free climbs, but sometimes this was because he under rated specific moves rather than following a logic of only rated the hardest move: he rated just about all of his climbs 5.9. For example, on the DNB on Middle everyone except Sacherer, and maybe Eric Beck, his partner, rated the mantle on the 3rd pitch as a single 5.10 move (it is well protected by a bolt at nose level). Sacherer and Beck rated it 5.9; there was loose talk (talk I have only just recently heard about) that maybe they hadn’t even free climbed the route since that move in particular was clearly not 5.9. On Ahab, the flaring, off-width, squeeze chimney on Moby Dick, Sacherer rated it 5.9 because no move is harder than 5.9. But I don’t know of anyone seriously questioning its 5.10 rating given its sustained climbing and seriousness.
Bob Kamps had a reputation of favoring rating only the hardest move and not rating the continuousness of the climb. (Maybe Tom Higgins can weight in here.) There is a story that Royal confronted Bob after Bob and Sacherer had free climbed Salathe’s and Nelson’s Southwest Face of Half Dome, telling him that “People, who cannot rate, shouldn’t.” Bob’s wife, Bonny, has said that the story is old and well known, but she has no evidence that the exchange ever occurred. Nonetheless, the story still points up the issue of the subjective nature of ratings even amongst the best climbers.
All free climbing difficulty rating systems, whether single move or section based, are comparative and have no absolute meaning. This works just fine if it is robustly comparative and relatively fixed. Jim recognized this in his article in Ascent in the early 70s: he listed comparative climbs by type by difficulty. (Steve and Ed post links to that article upthread.)
In Yosemite, because there is a wide range of climbing styles needed to get up different routes, the comparative basis of rating climbs is tricky when comparing different kinds of climbs: a 5.9 slab on the Apron will not prepare you for a 5.9 slab on Middle much less a finger crack on the Cookie or an off-width on El Cap. Expert climbers have the skill sets to feel that a specific difficulty rating across a range of very different climbs is the same, whether it is face, normal cracks, off-width, slab, steep, etc. To this point, Yosemite’s ratings through the 1970s were controlled by a small group of climbers, at least those that ended up in guide books. As Jim did in the 1970s, Chuck Pratt and Robbins both worked hard at making explicit comparisons before assigning a difficulty rating. And all three of them rated sections or pitches on overall difficulty rather than single move (the ratings in Steve’s guides were based on Royal’s and Chuck’s ratings and Meyer’s guides were mostly based on Jim’s ratings and climbers he trained, so to speak.) One story of Chuck’s dedication to rating rigor—I hope I have the right climb—was the all free rating for the Cleft on the Cookie cliff. Chuck had done the first ascent with a bit of aid in 1958 and returned in 1965 and free climbed it. He repeated the climb three times before committing the rating to 5.9. It is a somewhat tricky set of moves, but if approached carefully they are 5.9; it quickly becomes 5.10 if done badly.
The most obvious type of climbing that is seen as badly rated is off-width cracks. But this just reflects that off-width technique and specific muscle strength are not natural: it has to be learned. Holding an oblique heel-toe and standing up on a 5.9 off-width is next to impossible if you don’t know how to do it and have not developed the specific muscles to hold it. Once both the technique and the specific strength are acquired, 5.9 off-width is clearly 5.9, just like any other 5.9.
All ratings systems work, but they only work if the comparative climbs are more or less fixed within a particular area. Since we are all a little different and we all have good and bad days, our personal sense of the difficulty of a particular climb can have a big influence on how hard we think the climbing is. As long as these personal choices don’t get into the guide books, they don’t matter. (As a seemingly contradictory aside, the Valley ratings worked very well in part because only a few climbers had any input into the guide book ratings: I always knew what to expect with a Robbins, Pratt, or Bridwell rating; and I always thought of Kamps’ ratings as a numerical variation of “You’re gonna die.” Sacherer’s rating had all been rethought by the time I starting climbing those routes.) However, if the guide book ratings change based on shifting personal reflections, then ratings become meaningless and aspiring climbers suffer. Said another way, if the comparative ratings are tightly knit across a range of climbs (without regard to how illogical it seems to an outsider) they provide a useful measure to assess the relative development of one’s skill.
Personally, I never much cared to offer my assessment of how hard a pitch was; I was happy to let more talented climbers parse the differences. People who know me know I have a particular climbing style that might not work for everyone else. However, if I climbed a pitch, and knew the rating, and it felt very different to me, I used the information to rethink how I was approaching the moves or recognized that I was being too cocky and had to pay more attention. Occasionally it went the other way, in which case, I enjoyed the sensation of having a good day. I didn’t let those variations affect my sense of how hard the pitch was from a comparative point of view.
So in summary, I think the answers to your questions are:
* As the various posts on this is thread show, Americans are clearly confused about the YDS as regards to hardest move versus hardest section. Contrary to Wikipedia, the written history and the ratings of sustained climbs in Yosemite points to guidebooks using a broader measure of section difficulty on sustained climbs rather than single move to rate the difficulty of both free and aid pitches.
* The basic Class 5 and Class 6 system was developed into the 5.1 -5.9 and A1-A5 YDS system at Tahquitz Rock in the 1950s. 5.10 was added in about 1961 or so.
* In the late 1950s Mark Powell developed the I – VI Grade system as an overall measure which mostly reflected the time to climb a route.
* Bridwell came up the a, b, c, d ratings for 5.10 and above to overcome the wide range of difficulty within a single grade. At the time Jim thought that 5.10 covered a range which was about twice the difficulty width it should be relative to the lower grades. Climbers were pushing up against the hardest 5.10 ratings but few would venture a 5.11 rating--5.10 just kept getting wider and wider. He specifically hoped that as the climbing got harder, climbers would rate newer climbs at higher standards if there were small steps between the number ratings. It seemed to have worked. Jim also clearly understood the comparative nature of ratings and made it explicit by giving multiple examples. He also forcefully argued that single move ratings were a new and false method to rate climbs.
* Jim Erickson first published the R and X protection rating (or dangerousness rating) system in his Eldorado Canyon (Colorado) Guidebook in the early 1970s. (As reported by Alan Rubin upthread. Thanks Alan; I didn’t know that.)
* Locker came up with the “You’re gonna die” on/off difficulty rating to add to the upper reaches of 5.fun and to avoid having to remember what everyone else’s word descriptions meant.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2012 - 03:04pm PT
|
Is the YDS 5.10a, 5.11d, 5.12a etc...a grade for the overall difficulty of the climb or a grade for the hardest move?
Well, if the answer is "the hardest section", that could be anywhere from the whole climb to the hardest move. So the OP question collapses.
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Laramie
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2012 - 08:03pm PT
|
The biggest (bias)failure of rating cracks is that the ratings are male dominated. This unanimity becomes very apparent when you have one hundred feet of a consistent size that is just too small for the typical male hand to hand jam. Most females will bask in their success of having cruised a 12d (male rated)tight hand crack yet they likely will have to work very hard doing 100 ft of steep male rated 12d big fingers crack where the size is too tight for their hands to do hand jams.
For joint size dependent long cracks one rating can be off more than a number grade when we hear the contrast from someone with a perfect fit to those with a far too big or too small of a joint for the easiest jam.
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
merced, california
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 03:17pm PT
|
I think what I think about how relatively hard one climb is to another based on what type of climb, first. Face, crack, chimney, OW, hand. I don't bother with "finger" cracks, ever, as I am unequipped for them with no left thumb for leverage.
To say that all you need is experience to tell how bad ass something is going to be is simplistic, but in the main, check with someone who's done it. They have the experience, and if not a total boob, can give you advice. I hate having to rely on new guides. When we went to JT in 70 Dillis and Mathis and I got totally sandbagged on the Damper, for example, due to the frickin guide book. "Desert rats" eat what coyotes leave!
For your edification, here's "A New Climbing Classification Proposal".
It is authored by good old school Al MacDonald and appeared in the Sierra Club Bulletin in June, 1961, prior to the appearance of the Red Guide.
[I wish I could scan this instead of typing it out and I hope someone appreciates that].
Chuck Pratt {notice how authoritative that sound!] and I are presently putting together a "Climber's Guide to Yosemite Valley," separate and independent of the Climber's Guide to the High Sierra. We expect to include more than 200 routes, nearly 85% of which will be above 4th-class in difficulty.
The present grading system used in the High Sierra Guide--a system which classifies climbs as class 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 according to the difficulties of the climb, as determinged by the type of equipment needed--is adequate for most mountain [emphasis added] areas of the Dierra, but has little value in Yosemite Valley; for here almost all of the routes are 5th and 6th class. It has therefore become meaningless for climbers to call a route simply "class 5" when there are more than 100 class 5 routes--all differing to some extent in difficulty. A need has arisen for a more descriptive and detailed grading system.
Aabout 100 questionnaires were sent recently to climbers in California, and a meeting of the Sierra Club Mountaineering Committee was held to discuss this problem. As a result, the following system has been almost unanimously agree upon and we expect to use in the future Yosemite Valley guide:
~The Decimal System rates the physical difficulty of individual 5th- and 6th-class pitches--5.0, 6.0 being the easiest 5th and 6th class; 5.9, 6.9 being the most difficult. Classes 1 through 4 are the same as in the High Sierra Guide. They have no cecimal breakdown. This system is presently in use in Southern California at Tahquitz Rock, a climbing area that parallels Yosemite Valley. The decimal standards for Yosemite will conform, as closely as possible, with those in use at Tahquitz.
~The Grade [sic] refers to the over-all difficulty of the complete climb. It considers length of climb, route finding, climbing time, number of difficult pitches, etc. Roped climbs will be grouped into six categories, each of inreasing difficulty and designated by Roman Numerals I through VI (similar to the Alpine System). All unroped climbs have the Grade 0.
Listed below are Yosemite climbs which are characteristic of the Grades. These standard climbs have been agreed upon by the majority of the more experienced climbers active in the past few years in Yosemite and will be used to rank the other climbs.
GRADE------- CHARACTERISTIC CLIMB
I------- Sunnyside Bench, Monday Morning Slab West Side
II------ Royal Arches, Lower Cathedral Rock Overhang Bypass
III----- Phantom Pinnacle, El Capitan Tree Traverse
IV------ El Capitan Buttress, Worst Error
V------- Sentinel North Face, MCR North Face
VI------ Half Dome NW Face, El Capitan South Face
O------- Half Dome via Cables, routes up Tenaya Canyon
(NOTE: In the guide only one standard for each grade will be shown. Final selection of standards is still under discussion. Those climbs listed above are intended as examples only. The Decimal System will be handled in like manner.)
We recognize that border cased will occur in grading systems of theis type. The ecitors will discuss these routes with the persons who have climbed them before making a final decision.
In the guide, after the name of the climb and prededing the actual route description, will be the Grade and a decimal representation of the most difficult 5th and 6th class pitches as shown in the following example:
AWIYAH POINT
Buttress. IV (5.7, 6.3) First ascent...
This will enable the climber, at first glance, to get an idea of the difficulty of the climb and to compare it to his own ability. Within the route description, the difficulties of key pitches will be shown.
We feel this grading system is especially suitable in Yosemite Valley for three reasons: First, the Southern California climbers have found it extremely helpful in classifying the climbs at Tahquitz, and it has been used in the climbing guide to that area. Second, the grading system is already in popular use in Yosemite Valley and is familiar to nearly all Valley rock climbers. Thire, there is no other system at the present time that can be applied to Yosemite climbs as easily as this one. It is designed for technical rock climbing areas.
-
I find the last three points very relevant to why this and not the NCCS is the norm today. It had proven to be beneficial, it was in YV already unofficially, and the timing was right--there were no other systems being foisted on us other than the Decimal System at the time.
--
It's worth noting that the controversial Tioga Road through the northern part of Yosemite National Park was dedicated in June, 1961. For the last 50 years and more both ratings and roads have been accepted. It's history.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
the crowd MUST BE MOCKED...Mocked I tell you.
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 03:49pm PT
|
Read the Tahquitz guide and Reid Yosemite guide descriptions. Go with those.
|
|
kev
climber
A pile of dirt.
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 04:23pm PT
|
5.#d is usually harder than 5.(#+1)a
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2012 - 04:27pm PT
|
I'm not explaining jack squat until you explain the Brit system!!
|
|
SicMic
climber
across the street from Marshall, CO
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 04:21pm PT
|
The best one I've heard is that "5.6 is like life. Not that difficult, but hard enough that you want to use protection". Consensus is fleeting depending on body/ finger size, but we can all agree that 5.9+ and 5.10+ will always be tougher than advertised. Dolomite IV+ seemed to range from 5.7 to 5.10. I'm not sure if I saw it above, but Rocky Heights by Erickson is 1980.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2012 - 04:54pm PT
|
For me, Roger nailed it (so to speak). Ratings are a means to compare climbs, not climbers. They make sense only if the "standard" climbs retain their definition.
I found it interesting, for example, to read Mark Powell's description of the FA of the Powell-Reed on Middle Cathedral as being comparable in overall difficulty to the North Face of Sentinel [i.e. the Steck-Salathe]. This was before Powell explicitly introduced the I-VI grade system, but in any case, if you climbed one, you knew what to expect on the other.
I also found it interest that Sacherer and Fredricks rated their route on Middle Cathedral provisionally 5.10, awaiting confirmation by other climbers. The idea was that until there was a consensus, the rating was subject to change.
John
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
"Bumped for a better iced tea."
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
Here's the truth.
If every move on a pitch is 5.9, the last 5.9 move is much harder than the first one.
What?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Only if you're not capable of climbing 5.9 aerobically.
|
|
chill
climber
between the flat part and the blue wobbly thing
|
|
Is the YDS ...a grade for the overall difficulty of the climb or a grade for the hardest move?
Yes.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
The best one I've heard is that "5.6 is like life. Not that difficult, but hard enough that you want to use protection"...
Hmm. I'm thinking my life is about 5.11. Plenty of people deal with more difficult stuff, but without protection I'm out of my comfort zone.
On topic, I've felt for years that the YDS is a lousy way to grade sport climbs. The French system works well. I like YDS for traditional pitches, grade by the hardest move or moves. How about using 5.11aS, the S means sustained. We use R&X to signify danger, an S is ideal for sustained.
|
|
Steve Grossman
Trad climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
You can always count on The Big Stopper...always
|
|
Fossil climber
Trad climber
Atlin, B. C.
|
|
Great thread! Thanks for all the thoughtful and well informed posts! And the funny ones too.
I believe the YDS was borrowed from the Tahquitz system, as Might Hiker mentioned. I remember Royal putting up the first route there which he arbitrarily classified as 5.10. Some of us objected to 5.10 as being mathematically illogical. But what did we know? We were impressed anyway.
I'd like to know if any changes in the system(s) were made when sticky rubber climbing shoes became widely available. Seems to me that made a HUGE difference in what free climbers were capable of. If you've ever worn RRs or EBs - or boots - and then did the same climb in modern shoes - you know what I mean.
Same goes for the transition from pins to chocks and especially cams. Hell of an endurance difference between hanging on while placing a pin or popping in a cam.
|
|
Highgloss
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
There is a big difference from a 1977 5.9 FA and a steaming pile of 2016 5.9, the older climbs tend to be much more of a test of mind than body and just barely safe enough to make you think about trying to get up it.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
I'd like to know if any changes in the system(s) were made when sticky rubber climbing shoes became widely available. Seems to me that made a HUGE difference in what free climbers were capable of. If you've ever worn RRs or EBs - or boots - and then did the same climb in modern shoes - you know what I mean.
The short answer is no, although perhaps some slabby granite climbs got easier by half a grade in sticky rubber. For steeper climbs, sticky rubber made things easier but not enough to change the grade, at least for the climbs I know about, and there are quite a few that I've now done in the full spectrum of footwear from late 1950's mountain boots and kletterschue to the very latest downturned velcro-strapped innovations.
From my perspective, the main contribution of sticky rubber/modern shoe construction (slip- vs. board-lasted) has been to make the system far more forgiving of foot motion while a hold is weighted. BITD, if you moved your foot on a small hold, you'd be off in a flash. Now you can not only be sloppier (compared to the old days), but in fact foot motion, as embodied in the pivots required by various drop-knee techniques, has become an integral part of climbing technique.
Nuts and cams made protection easier, faster, and better on most climbs. By significantly reducing the pump factor, many steep climbs probably did get close to a grade easier, but the discussion makes it clear that the endurance factor vs. move difficulty has never been fully sorted out anyway (and may not be able to be sorted out in the end).
I think modern protection gear lowered the anxiety level on lots of routes. One of the big differences is the amount of protection you placed. I still remember the feeling of delight in loading up my early "clean" leads with two to three times the number of protection points I would have placed with pitons. People spoke of "overprotecting" with pitons; that phrase and concept have vanished from the scene.
All that said, the trend is not for climbing grades to be lowered because of better gear, but instead the opposite; climbing grades have generally stayed the same or been raised, in some cases significantly.
|
|
F'ueco
Boulder climber
Peoples Republic Of Boulder
|
|
C'mon, Mick, you know the answer...
It's all VB [or perhaps 5.0 in the context of YDS ratings] until you fall.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 78 of total 78 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!