Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 48 of total 48 in this topic |
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. ;-)
|
|
yo
Sport climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
It's a mistake to consider grades an intrinsic part of a route, as though the grade 10c appeared with OL when its crystals were forged a jillion years ago (hit me with the actual number, Minerals). Grades are a reflection of human beings' opinions about the piece of rock sitting there, and opinions change, baby.
|
|
yo
Sport climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
Schinkees, people, get a life. This is an instant messaging argument.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
...and if we let them, they will all get diluted...
Cool, I've wondered how long it will take me to lead 5.16!
Yo- Dude- you messed up the whole sequence right there!
=)
|
|
Melissa
Big Wall climber
oakland, ca
|
|
I don't claim to have a life. It's raining, I have to work late, and my boyfriend is out of town.
I dug up this great post by David in response to the Ultra Classic Original James Boracho Troll, "Ratings, I Scoff"...
You must have had the same experience I did. I went in to the MountainShop the other day and out of nowhere someone grabbed me. I felt the nose of a hand gun pressed up against my ribs. I couldn't believe it. I was being held up at gun point! Some maniac wearing a ski mask with a SuperTopo logo forced me to buy a guide book with ratings next to every route.
It was horrible but it didn't end there. I decided to go climbing the next day and from behind a boulder the crazed masked man rushed towards me. He opened the guidebook to the page which described the route I was about to climb. He forced the page in to my face. I shut my eyes. I tried my best but I couldn't help it...I caught a glance of the rating. The number was burned in to my brain. The horror!!
I proceeded to finish the climb with out incident but the experience was horrible. With the rating in my head I could imagine and predict every single hold before I even got to that part of the climb. I don't know if I'll ever recover.
Was it like that for you? What can we do to stop this madness. Ratings! The horror!!
|
|
NeverSurfaced
Trad climber
Soviet Monica, Ca.
|
|
This is a great thread!
I’ve been wanting to post about grades for the last couple of days as I’ve flipped through different guide books and pondered why the 5.9’s at JT seem so much harder than the 5.9’s at somewhere like Williamson for example. I guessed (and I could be & probably am completely wrong), that since the standard roof back in the day, when places like JT were ‘developed’ was 5.10, that most climbs put up before that standard was upgraded, were graded down from 5.10 (which I’m assuming at the time was an ungodly feat of super-human ability). When the standard was upgraded, all the old climbs which were set at the high water mark of 5.10 stayed the same, whereas new routes, (which were probably as hard or harder) were pegged at grades in the 5.11 - 5.12 range.
Disclaimer: My climbing in Yosemite is limited to a couple of routes, so my experience with the relative stiffness of the TDS in the park is limited. If I’m completely off course, please keep that in mind.
That’s what I’ve been able to piece together, although I’m EXTREMELY INTERESTED in hearing others thoughts on the relative stiffness (or Viagra-craving limp-titude) of the grades in JT vs. Tahquitz & Suicide vs. Yosemite vs. Lover’s Leap vs. etc…
This has been bugging me for some time, someone throw me a rope!!
|
|
yo
Sport climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
Yeah, I apologize for typing out of order. I got so gripped I had to go to another thread until the dust settled.
It speaks proudly about the Valley that we all bitch and moan about a route getting upgraded from 10c to 10d or whatever. Even OL at 11a is stout.
I went to Table Mountain in CO (I don't know why) and my climbing jumped a grade and a half. Instead of flailing on 10 trad, I was sending mid 12. I was a god!
The Valley, once you get down to it, truly is the center of the universe. Everywhere else is apostate.
|
|
NeverSurfaced
Trad climber
Soviet Monica, Ca.
|
|
Holy sh#t, there were like 8 more posts in the time it took me to type mine. I gotta speed up.
|
|
David
Trad climber
San Rafael, CA
|
|
That must have been Chris who accosted me. That guy is always trying to force his standards on the rest of us. I wonder where I can get one of those ST embroidered ski masks though. Kind of a cool look.
|
|
NeverSurfaced
Trad climber
Soviet Monica, Ca.
|
|
Yo, that's what I'm talking about. I was leading 10c at other crags, went to the tree and got spit off a 5.6 crack. Not only did I feel dejected the rest of the day, but I had to rope down from the top of the rock just to retreive my highest cam (tail tucked).
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
It's funny that there is so much debate about Outer Limit's being 11a. The 11a rating is for the second pitch traverse. Anybody done it? Wadda ya think?
Awareness of ratings change and I welcome it. Serenity was downrated from 5.11 years ago. It might seem like 10c or b if you know the beta and had climbed it before, but if you're onsighting and trying to hang out and place pro, it will seem different.
I onsighted a 10d that seemed light for the grade a couple days ago. That was a relief! I'd rather have overrating than be sandbagged. Actually, I had the supertopo beta which kept me from screwing it up.
An anybody who thinks the DNB has only one 10b move, or that Steck Salathe is 5.9 with tons of 5.7, they have their head in the sand.
Peace
karl
|
|
James
Gym climber
City by the Bay
|
|
Ratings are also area dependent...if you climb at a specific area you come to know the rock and a 5.9 feels right on and not "old school"
I went to the gunks recently and watched as my partner's feet cut loose on a 5.8...I nearly sh#t myself. The route was still 5.8 I just wasn't used to climbing that way...
The supertopos books and more recent guides are targeting more of a traveling climbing group and so they rate climbs according to a non-local perspective...If you haven't climbed a lot of ow in the valley Mental Block will seem like stout 10c but if you're local it will feel like 10a...
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
Hey Karl-
I have climbed the 2nd pitch of OL- it wouldn't be so hard if the route setter had given us some friggin feet in there!
I continued this conversation verbally last night w/ a friend who stated that so many routes have argueable ratings that you can't hope to make them all "correct", and in that context it seems silly to try.
I still say a Yosemite Guide Book should be rating climbs at Yosemite standards. Concern for the welfare of gym climbers and out of town travelers shouldn't determine the grades. I am all for "user friendly" guide books, but that should be limited to map quality topos and other good beta.
I can't wait to fimd out how hard Midnight Lightning and some of the other bouldering problems are these days...
|
|
Brutus of Wyde
climber
Old Climbers' Home, Oakland CA
|
|
> It's funny that there is so much debate about
> Outer Limit's being 11a. The 11a rating is for
> the second pitch traverse. Anybody done it?
> Wadda ya think?
Done it twice.
10c with backscum/shoulderscum against the roof to keep the feet sticking. 11a if you do it wrong, try strictly faceclimbing. Its easy to make climbs harder. Just do them wrong.
Brutus
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Bishop, Ca.
|
|
>Hey Karl-
I have climbed the 2nd pitch of OL- it wouldn't be so hard if the route setter had given us some friggin feet in there! >
Actually he did... the foot hold is/was chiseled.
Couple of thoughts on Williamson being ratings soft:
Joshua Tree new routes: put up by the big guns of the era.
Williamson new routes: put up by LA softbodies in lycra who got spanked at Josh.
carry on....
Russ
|
|
10b4me
Trad climber
Bishop(hopefully)
|
|
one person's 510c is another's 5.6, but i digress. Never Surfaced, I've climbed at the Tree for many years. Have found that the 5.x at Josh was harder than 5.x at Idyllwild most of the time, but not always. On some routes I've found the 5.x in Josh to be harder than the 5.x in Yos.
|
|
NeverSurfaced
Trad climber
Soviet Monica, Ca.
|
|
What's wrong with lycra?
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 8, 2009 - 12:56am PT
|
old skool bump with a couple good one liners from the Brutus.
|
|
MisterE
Trad climber
Canoga Bark! CA
|
|
Nice bump, Mungie!
It DOES get easier...I mean harder...Crap, consensus? That's what we get to argue about in the Old Climber's Home. Looking forward to it, but not there yet...
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 8, 2009 - 02:52am PT
|
my second post in that forum.
what's funny is that I haven't been on it. One of those routes I was 'saving' for the onsight attempt, but loads of years later and not any lighter, I think I'd just like borrow a TR or follow on the first pitch this winter. You know, one of those routes we should sample before...
|
|
okie
Trad climber
San Leandro, Ca
|
|
Changing ratings sells more guidebooks. I like the book that says I just climbed Waverly Wafer at 11a, not that other one that calls it 10c- it's human nature...
No easy answer to this question, except maybe you should know it's a very imperfect system. Ratings are a reflection of the people and conditions of those times of the FA. They were subjective from the very beginning. Some climbs get harder and some get easier over time due to a variety of changes, some human, some technological, some natural.
I heard that when Bridwell rated New Dimensions 5.11 a lot of people thought it was soft and not really deserving of this impressive new grade but they kept it to themselves because he was very intimidating (he did threaten to break someone's legs once).
|
|
MisterE
Trad climber
Canoga Bark! CA
|
|
One of the notes we are putting in the Sedona guide is the following:
Difficulty ratings are generally representative only of the specific area. This means that a 5.10 at The Planetarium may be vastly different than a 5.10 at The Cathedral Area, or anywhere else.
and in the disclaimer:
Also, ratings of climbing difficulty and danger are always subjective and depend on the physical characteristics (for example, height), experience, technical ability, confidence and physical fitness of the climber who supplied the rating. Additionally, climbers who achieve first ascents sometimes under-rate the difficulty or the danger of the climbing route out of fear of being ridiculed if a climb is later down-rated by subsequent ascents.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 8, 2009 - 11:33am PT
|
E,
yeah, it's interesting, I didn't used to worry about trying to be conservative, but the more I see grade float, the more I want to reverse it's effects. good to mention it in the book.
M
|
|
ydpl8s
Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
|
|
In some weird convergence of symbiotic understanding, the new young guns have tied into my inner experience of a climb's rating as I get older.
The old 5.8 that is now rated 5.10 by the new guns seems somehow related to the fact that 5.8 in general, now feels like 5.10 to me!
|
|
salad
climber
Escondido
|
|
its all v2-.
|
|
phylp
Trad climber
Millbrae, CA
|
|
Guidebooks are trying to provide guidance for current use, not historical context, so I suppose the authors change ratings in response to consumer input. The original rating is interesting information for some folks though, so maybe that could be put in tiny print in a page in the back of the book (like the section where some guidebooks still list the first ascentionists names and year and style).
Since shortly after I started climbing, I have applied what I call the "plus or minus two" rule. If a climb is rated 10.c and it feels like 10.a or 11.a to me, I see no cause for complaint at all, and in fact get on lead with the expectation that a route will feel that much "harder" or "easier" to me. I'm hard pressed to think of any route I've climbed that has been changed by MORE than 2 letter grades over the years. A lot have gone up or down 1, a few up or down 2, but I can't think of any that have gone up or down 3. Can anyone? Personally, that's when I'd change the rating in the book.
Phyl
|
|
Ω
climber
|
|
OUTER LIMITS IS 5.10C !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SUPERTOPO IS UPRATING A LOT OF CLIMBS AS THEY CAN NOT CLIMB HARD STUFF!
|
|
mongrel
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
Now that this thread has been bumped, it's time for Largo to chime in with his frequent - and accurate! - rant that the first pitch of the DNB is way sandbagged at 5.7, more like slippery rounded awkward goddam 9 or 10a in that one nasty section.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 48 of total 48 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!