Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
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.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!