Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 81 of total 81 in this topic |
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jul 24, 2006 - 12:32am PT
|
If there is a limit to what a human hand can stick to and a human foot, then ratings have to be closed ended.
If super thin 5.13 slabs have no discernable features, and overhangs are only feasable by virtue of discernable features. Then there are no 5.14 climbs.
It follows from the position that 5.13 is only a series of what was formerly known as 5.12 moves, consequently then 5.13d is only lots of very difficult 5.12 moves, crimpy moves even, but only measurable as 5.12. (a move equals one limbs movement to a new hold)
Further, that 5.14 is only a series of very hard 5.13 moves. But if 5.13 has been established for years, and we know it is already 5.12 hard moves, then the YDS system cannot extend to 5.14, or if it does, it's just another way of saying 'here's a lot of really hard 5.12 moves).
Try not to use soft 5.12 climbs as your exemplars.
Thoughts?
|
|
Don't let go
Trad climber
Yorba Linda, CA
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 01:23am PT
|
When I climb 5.15, you'll be sorry!
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 24, 2006 - 01:39am PT
|
I am at your disposal to review any pics of said 5.15.
:)
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 01:46am PT
|
Yup, there are no millionaires nor billionaires either, just guys with numbers on accounts.
and hey, if a guy can run 100 yards in under 10 seconds, isn't running a mile in under 4 minutes kinda slacker?
But maybe those sport climbers have transgressed the natural limits of human crimping. They probably do it by using (or giving up) drugs of some sort!
let's lynch em!
peace
karl
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 04:31am PT
|
5.16 is scheduled for September, when those new Bazooka Joe shoes come in.
|
|
Bill
climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 05:11am PT
|
"If there is a limit to what a human hand can stick to and a human foot, then ratings have to be closed ended."
This begs the question of whether or not the limits of what the human hand or foot can stick to defines the limits of difficulty.
"If super thin 5.13 slabs have no discernable features, and overhangs are only feasable by virtue of discernable features. Then there are no 5.14 climbs."
No, you can only conclude that feasable overhangs are not super thin 5.13 slabs.
"It follows from the position that 5.13 is only a series of what was formerly known as 5.12 moves, consequently then 5.13d is only lots of very difficult 5.12 moves, crimpy moves even, but only measurable as 5.12. (a move equals one limbs movement to a new hold)"
Um, no, it doesn't follow.
"Further, that 5.14 is only a series of very hard 5.13 moves. But if 5.13 has been established for years, and we know it is already 5.12 hard moves, then the YDS system cannot extend to 5.14, or if it does, it's just another way of saying 'here's a lot of really hard 5.12 moves)."
Whah?
"Try not to use soft 5.12 climbs as your exemplars."
Ok.
"Thoughts?"
My head hurts.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 11:08am PT
|
Limits do exist, there are physiological limits which people can train to, but without non-natural assistance, cannot exceed.
Interesting to read about Landis' melt-down ride. The Phonak team physiologist determined that his body just needed a rest day, and imposed it. Anyone ever have that happen to them? I have, on long trips to the mountain. That's why we say "listen to your body". This phenomena had disappeared, it is suspected, due to the use of various chemical enhancements (doping) which provided a boost to the participants of the Tour. It is interesting to consider the use of our knowledge of the body, and ways of altering its behavior, as part of the sport.
Jay Gould used baseball as an example, particularly the fact that batters who hit 0.400 or greater no longer exist. As the sport matured, and the atheletes became better, both pitchers and hitters, the limits of performance were reached.
Lately, a historical analysis of home run hitters definitely shows how small advantages of steroid use altered the "normal" progression of a power hitter. Baseball is wonderful because of all the seemingly mindless statistics that have been gathered through the decades.
Climbing may also be like that... as the popularity of the sport increased, better atheletes started to participate, pushing the difficulty of climbs to the limits. There was a very large advance in difficulty levels of climbs in the 60's and then again in the 70's, with a tapering off in the 80's and 90's. This could be attributed to the fact that we are sampling the very high "tails" of the distribution of human capability, that is, the elite climbers who are a very small majority of us.
In climbing, the measure is difficult, simply because any standardization of climbing is resisted (see the thread on "5.10 standards"). However, few of the truely high range climbs put up in the Valley see many repeats. And fewer of those type of climbs are being put up.
It may very well be that 5.12 difficulty is the limit, with 5.13 being a string of 5.12 moves... many less difficult climbs are rated harder even though individual moves are "easy", think Meat Grinder often described as a series of 5.9 moves, or Reed's Direct which is rated 5.9 but often seems a lot more difficult because of the sustained nature of the climb.
With the very strong insentive to push the limits of climbing higher, and the marvelous preparation that many of the young climbers posess today, it is revealing that so few 5.14's are claimed, and and even fewer 5.15s. Even bouldering seems to have topped out in difficulty, which further supports the idea of limits being reached.
Many will decry the thought that humans are physically limited. But it is true. Our burden is knowing that on an intellectual level. We should be thankful that the consequence of our physical limitations are a reduced self-esteem rather than ending up as some preditor's dinner...
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 11:41am PT
|
I have always been inspired by the story "The greatest climber in the world" though it has been years since I have read it.
Tronc Felieu sitting and observing the boulder over time, comes to see the stone at increasingly finer scale until the texture reveals holds that could be seen no other way.
Maybe the rock stars of tomorrow will meditate long enough to be able to see the hidden jugs, then like the many animals that can bond with the texture, they will scamper successfully on walls of blankness that spit us off today.
Peter
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 24, 2006 - 11:47am PT
|
"Limits do exist, there are physiological limits which people can train to, but without non-natural assistance, cannot exceed."
thx Ed, a better way of putting the general principle.
|
|
Richard Large
climber
where you least expect
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 11:49am PT
|
We are obsolete. Homo Cyberneticus: the next great surge in ratings.
|
|
pFranzen
Boulder climber
Portland, OR
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 11:52am PT
|
"Many will decry the thought that humans are physically limited. But it is true."
Sure it is, but people will never believe that the limit has been reached. Someone will always train even harder to break the 100m or marathon record, or bench press another few ounces, or free The Nose a few minutes faster than the last person.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 11:54am PT
|
Look at the declining differences in winning and non-winning times of various Olympic sports - they passed seconds long ago and are now down to time differences of tens and hundredths of a second. One can only assume they likewise are quickly discovering the limits of [unaltered] human performance. There will never be a sub-two minute mile.
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 12:00pm PT
|
I don't buy this theory at all. Simply makes no sense or wasn't thought out. The entire theory rests on this particular line: "If super thin 5.13 slabs have no discernable features, and overhangs are only feasable by virtue of discernable features. Then there are no 5.14 climbs."
Thing is, slabs are not even vertical. You're not accounting for weight, a thing called gravity, friction, etc. Mainly, not accounting for basic physics. There are simply all kinds of holes in this logic.
|
|
fracture
Sport climber
Austin, TX
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 12:03pm PT
|
If super thin 5.13 slabs have no discernable features, and overhangs are only feasable by virtue of discernable features. Then there are no 5.14 climbs.
You're one of those people who thinks that harder routes just have smaller and smaller holds, aren't you?
Harder climbing requires precision timing of difficult dynamic movement under stress (due to fatigue)---it is usually not just strong fingers and small holds.
|
|
Kevster
Trad climber
Evergreen, CO
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 12:03pm PT
|
There are physiological limits to what the human body can do, but is climbing really limited to skin and bone? Look at figure skating or gymnastics, kids are doing things today that were not even dreamed of 20 years ago. The real limitations in climbing are not even close to being reached....just excuses for the meek to stop trying. It is easy for a 5.12 climber to say that "it will never progress past 5.14" but that is not what 5.14 climbers say.
|
|
fracture
Sport climber
Austin, TX
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 12:08pm PT
|
Climbing is a young sport and it is changing rapidly. A few decades from now, they'll laugh at what we think of as "hard".
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 12:15pm PT
|
The climbing population today is too small to know what standards can be achieved.
The more mature sports have had decades of development where talent from a very broad base can be identified early.
How many people of African descent are climbing?
How many climbers are over 6'10"?
How many climbing shoe manufacturers make size 16 shoe?
|
|
G_Gnome
Social climber
Tendonitis City
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 12:20pm PT
|
And it's amazing just how little one needs to enhance one's endocrin system in order to jump up in power, endurance, and strength to weight ratio.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 12:30pm PT
|
First of all, there comes along a climber genius like Mozart every once in awhile that is stronger and smarter. The piano only has so many keys and fingers can only move so fast but a genius can do things with limited resources that we can't imagine.
Second, just as knowledge about training and nutrition (and not living like a total waste case) has advanced climbing in recent year (plus the greater numbers participating) we can't know where the next advances might break through from.
I happen to have inside information that Tommy Caldwell's accident was not as it seemed. He was sharpening his fingers to fit in the tiny crack under the great roof of the Nose when he accidentally went overboard in one of them. That's dedication.
DNA technology is ripining to the extent that it's probably folly to think that 100 years from now (if we haven't killed ourselves off) that folks won't be living in bodies re-engineered for strength, intelligence, and longevity from the inside.
Peace
Karl
|
|
taco bill
Trad climber
boulder, co
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 12:42pm PT
|
The Tortoise challenged Achilles to a race, claiming that he would win as long as Achilles gave him a small head start. Achilles laughed at this, for of course he was a mighty warrior and swift of foot, whereas the Tortoise was heavy and slow.
“How big a head start do you need?” he asked the Tortoise with a smile.
“Ten meters,” the latter replied.
Achilles laughed louder than ever. “You will surely lose, my friend, in that case,” he told the Tortoise, “but let us race, if you wish it.”
“On the contrary,” said the Tortoise, “I will win, and I can prove it to you by a simple argument.”
“Go on then,” Achilles replied, with less confidence than he felt before. He knew he was the superior athlete, but he also knew the Tortoise had the sharper wits, and he had lost many a bewildering argument with him before this.
“Suppose,” began the Tortoise, “that you give me a 10-meter head start. Would you say that you could cover that 10 meters between us very quickly?”
“Very quickly,” Achilles affirmed.
“And in that time, how far should I have gone, do you think?”
“Perhaps a meter – no more,” said Achilles after a moment's thought.
“Very well,” replied the Tortoise, “so now there is a meter between us. And you would catch up that distance very quickly?”
“Very quickly indeed!”
“And yet, in that time I shall have gone a little way farther, so that now you must catch that distance up, yes?”
“Ye-es,” said Achilles slowly.
“And while you are doing so, I shall have gone a little way farther, so that you must then catch up the new distance,” the Tortoise continued smoothly.
Achilles said nothing.
“And so you see, in each moment you must be catching up the distance between us, and yet I – at the same time – will be adding a new distance, however small, for you to catch up again.”
“Indeed, it must be so,” said Achilles wearily.
“And so you can never catch up,” the Tortoise concluded sympathetically.
“You are right, as always,” said Achilles sadly – and conceded the race.
|
|
pFranzen
Boulder climber
Portland, OR
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 01:43pm PT
|
So the moral of that story is that Achilles doesn't understand calculus?
|
|
mark miller
Social climber
Reno
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 02:11pm PT
|
I don't climb the big numbers, but I've noticed and debated this topic with my partners since the 80's. As we were struggling to stick to 5.11 slab( and wearing out our shoes sliding off) we could usaully work our way up the face with a bit of effort. Then 5.12 came along and it was like " do what, smear on what" how could this ever be any harder. But then I also noticed at sport style area's Cave and pig rock, that the harder number climbs usually weren't any harder then 5.9 or 5.10 moves( once you learned a few funky techniques) but required a different level of conditioning to do the moves repeatedly, and hanging 200lbs upside down.
Do the rating systems need to be altered to more correctly reflect the hardest technical move of a climb and then also show how continously strenuous a climb is? But where do we draw the line on route beta? Does every move have to be documented for an individuals size or should we keep it adventourus and just say that Left facing corner over there is an easy 5.10. I'm old school and usually feel lucky if I've found the correct side of the mountain I even ment to climb. That looks good let's go up! Some days 5.7 feels like scary 5.11 and some days 5.10 feels like 4th class, Like life everdays a crap shoot.
|
|
the Fet
climber
A urine, feces, and guano encrusted ledge
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 02:13pm PT
|
I can do 5.12 moves, I can not do 5.14 moves (e.g. dynos from monos).
The scale must be open ended, someone always comes along and climbs something harder than has been done before.
It will take longer and longer to reach each new level of difficulty.
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 03:18pm PT
|
Anyone who has ever climbed real .12's or higher and thinks they are only longer, more sustained .9s, .10s, .11s, etc... Well, you haven't climbed a real .12 or higher route. Simple as that. I'd wager you haven't even looked at a real .12 or higher, if that's what you think. You can see the difference in the holds, the spacing between them, the angle of the rock, all kinds of things, from the ground.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 04:02pm PT
|
I don't agree with Karl in one respect and agree with him in another...
The conception of a climb is something that imagination and creativity are of paramount importance. How climbs are conceived may be entirely open ended and take visionary climbers to imagine and execute.
Part of this, however, is dealing with the physical limitations of the "players". For Mozart has to write music that can be played by a human utilizing the technology available. The technology has the ability to extend human capability, yes, but at some point we fail to think of the assist as "legitimate". Playing an instrument is considered as something different from instructing a computer to play a piece, even though the computer may be able to do something that a human could never do.
In climbing, we use technology very selectively in the allowed assists. The selectivity is to provide the maximum human participation in the sport, with technology providing a safety margin which reduces the consequence of failing. A big exception is in shoes, which give humans a big technology advantage important for pushing the sport. But even "hand-jammies" are frowned upon by many as unnecessary aid in climbing crack, some here have even argued that hand taping is "aid", and extremists have called for the elimination of chalk usage as too artificial.
If we put a premium on human performance, then there will be limits imposed by human capability. These can be enhanced by enhancing the human, but there are definite limitations along those lines. Training like crazy isn't guarenteed to make you a great climber, it can help... if you have a physiology that would allow you to succeed as a "5.12 Climber" than following a training regime might actually help you realize that grade... too bad if your body doesn't, won't or can't be trained.
The physio-mechanical description of climbing is a work in progress. However, there is enough known to start to address what the physical limits in climbing might be. I offer the historical record as an indication that we are reaching the limits.
----
For those who missed it: [url="http://home.comcast.net/~e.hartouni/doc/greatest_climber.txt"]The Greatest Climber in the World by Bernard Amy[/url], interesting that it should come up here... but talk of physical limitiations, existence or non-existence of the "most difficult grade", etc. may be confused with the unlimited nature of human imagination.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 05:54pm PT
|
"If we put a premium on human performance, then there will be limits imposed by human capability. These can be enhanced by enhancing the human, but there are definite limitations along those lines."
What limitations are you so sure about Ed? 100 years from now we might have the ability to alter our DNA to enhance our performance in unimaginable ways.
Maybe not too but the possibility is real. I climbed with a guy whose only working kidney was a transplant. Maybe all climbs are A0 for him now!
What's cheating and what's standard medical science all depends on time, concensus and PR.
Actually we better hope that DNA technology allows us to engineer ourselves smarter, and more importantly wiser and more compassionate (or hope for our evolution by some other miracle) cause the way we are going, it's clear that humans are just limited enough to be on a crash course with disaster.
Peace
Karl
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 07:26pm PT
|
We'll never genetically engineer wisdom. Only time and experience do that.
Gecko nanoskin, on the other hand, is a possibility.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 24, 2006 - 09:30pm PT
|
with gecko nanoskin a new sport will be born
how far up a perfectly smooth feature can you climb?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 09:31pm PT
|
Some high rise buildings don't have a 13th floor. A concession to superstition and a reluctance by renters.
Mabye we should skip 5.13, promote the 13s to 14s and start in on 5.16. that would be an icebreaker.
Peace
Karl
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 09:45pm PT
|
5.15 and above is no problem if you want to do it. You can even free solo El cap it's not hard.
Just develop the conciousness and your in.
Your next life will be in a lizard body or some insect crawling up some rock.
You'll never believe me, but it doesn't matter. You'll be a worm crawling up some rock face and totaly missed the boat to what climbing is really all about.
Happy crawling .................
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 09:56pm PT
|
There are definitely physical limits, but since there are moves on boulder problems harder than 5.13 (not that I would know personnally) that could be worked into climbs somewhere, I don't think we know where those limits will be, yet. On the other hand I think we are going asymptotic ( is that a word?)and it's going to take more 'work' for a measureable increase in rating. So, if the scale remains constant (ha) it will take more chronologic time to establish progressively higher grades.
I've tried to relate those SJ Gould baseball analogies to climbing before, and though there are a lot of correlations, climbing doesn't have defense and offense, so to speak. Thus, I think our ceiling will be harder to probe.
Unless, of course the burgeoning field of; doubt, spew and slander gain even more accepted 'importance' than they do now!
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 24, 2006 - 10:22pm PT
|
[edited- Sorry Jaybro, I jumped the gun on that one]
boulder problems are just cruxs. any bouldering rating system that doesn't match an existing YDS system for it's highest value is full of sh#t and should be dropped like a neurotic ex-wife.
|
|
john hansen
climber
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 10:37pm PT
|
I think some one WILL free solo the Nose some day. All the moves have been done free ... It is just a matter of some one being mentally ready. people were blown away by Bacher on New Dimensions or Croft on Astroman , Huber did a 1500 foot 12 b or something in italy. When Barber soloed the Steck Slathe people thought No way!!! Of course Hershey fell and died on the same route. Its been shown to be physically possible .. " changing corners" is 14a according to the man with 9 and a half fingers.
Has any one ever soloed 14a in the death zone before.. 180 feet or 2800 you still die. It will happen.
|
|
john hansen
climber
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006 - 10:40pm PT
|
I think some one WILL free solo the Nose some day. All the moves have been done free ... It is just a matter of some one being mentally ready. people were blown away by Bacher on New Dimensions or Croft on Astroman , Huber did a 1500 foot 12 b or something in italy. When Barber soloed the Steck Slathe people thought No way!!! Of course Hershey fell and died on the same route. Its been shown to be physically possible .. " changing corners" is 14a according to the man with 9 and a half fingers.
Has any one ever soloed 14a in the death zone before.. 180 feet or 2800 you still die. It will happen.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2006 - 01:35pm PT
|
Baseball has been around for more than 100 years, a time period of remarkable changes, and while the level of play has improved greatly, the current limitations are due to the human.
I offer baseball not as an exact analogy, but as a way of looking for indications of limits, that is, through statistics. This is descriptive in the sense that we can see if the limits exist without being able to explicitly identify the limits.
For climbing, the only real statistics we have are the date at which various grades are achieved, the rate at which we are doing more and more difficult problems. This rate has greatly decreased in the last 20 years inspite of better climbers climbing with strong motivations to push the degree of difficulty up, as that is one way of demonstrating a climber's contribution to the sport, and achieving notice.
If this is true, then we can start to analyze the reason for the limits. That will be interesting.
Werner has a profound wisdom that we may not believe, but we would do well to heed. I was climbing on Stately Pleasure Dome in Tuolumne Meadows last Sunday and was very there... watching the lizards play on the rock, and the insects, and the marmots scampering around in a vertical world that is natural, that is their home put me at ease in my own return to those places. I don't know what it was about that day, it was an easy moving-over-stone day with no attendant difficulties in climbing, just joyous to be there.
If I believed in reincarnation, I would be honored in my reincarnated self being a lizard on the rock without the burden of having to over intellectualize my existence.
But I am not that now... and only time will tell what our fate will be. Werner does not need us to believe, nor do we need to believe, for his wisdom to enlighten us.
|
|
G_Gnome
Social climber
Tendonitis City
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2006 - 02:51pm PT
|
Ho man, there were at least 4 parties up on Pywiak when it started to rain on Sunday. I bet everyone of them wished they were a lizard that could just scamper off with no worries, especially the poor dude leading the dike route at that moment. Can anyone say 'poor planning'?
|
|
rjtrials
Sport climber
ChattaVegas
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2006 - 02:52pm PT
|
Mungeclimber-
"boulder problems are just cruxs. any bouldering rating system that doesn't match an existing YDS system for it's highest value is full of sh#t and should be dropped like a neurotic ex-wife."
There is a system just like that, the Font grading scale. It goes hand in hand with the french system. The highest graded problems and routes are respectively F8c+ and f9b+.
These systems are very good for rating either the hardest moves (Font) or the entire difficutly (french) of a route or problem.
Of course if your are climbing hard trad, where danger needs to be accounted for, the English system works very well.
In short, the YDS is broken and needs to be replaced or supplanted.
RJ
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 25, 2006 - 03:50pm PT
|
agree, a rating system for danger would be nice.
Clint and I discussed this over email, that some routes didn't used to get R ratings, if the unprotected part was 2 grades below the listed rating. (Clint, correct me if I am mistating).
In any event, R or X ratins are really vague and poorly applied on a consistent basis due to subjective levels of fear.
however, one of my thoughts around the YDS is that it seems to take into account endurance in modern times, but many do not realize the complexity of this.
|
|
BoKu
Trad climber
Douglas Flat, CA
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2006 - 09:26pm PT
|
> The Tortoise challenged Achilles to a race...
Zeno's race!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2006 - 02:52am PT
|
On a white board, you can show irrational numbers.
But you cannot hold such in your hand.
On a climbing forum, you can argue that there is no move harder than 5.13 (or V-somethingorother). But you can hold a 5.14 in your hand.
Go climb Just Do It, come back, and tell us how there is no 5.14.
|
|
Don't let go
Trad climber
Yorba Linda, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 02:43am PT
|
About ten years ago when I started climbing, I was under the impression that 5.14 was the hardest thing imaginable. As time went on I was under the impression that 5.14d was a horizonatal sheet of glass and nothing could physically exist that would be harder than that. I guess my conceptions were wrong because the elite few can climb 5.14. It just seemed that the standard was that nothing could exist that would be harder than 5.14.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 03:13am PT
|
Here is a study of grades of routes in Yosemite Valley.
I took the distributions of dates for First Ascents (FA) or First Free Ascents (FFA) as a function of year, e.g. counting the number of 5.8 climbs in each year for each of the grades 5.4 through 5.12b, the total number of climbs I considered in each grade:
5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10a 5.10b 5.10c 5.10d 5.11a 5.11b 5.11c 5.11d 5.12a 5.12b
12 23 35 102 174 259 170 115 125 123 118 122 83 92 50 40
I then took the accumulated number of climbs for each grade over the years, and divided each year by the total number of climbs. So at present, the value should be 1, that is, all existing climbs have been put up (that just means all the climbs we know about today).
The distribution is somewhat different then I expected but might be explainable.
First I expected the distributions to be more like a "logistics curve" from biology, that the rate of growth of climbs would start out slow, increase to a maximum then decrease, an "s-curve". While these distributions look a little like that, they have important discontinuities.
First, it seems that a grade is established and then almost no activity takes place for some time. Then the rate of climbs at grade increases, this seems to decrease abruptly as the rate of climbs at the next grade increases. The rate of putting up climbs at one grade competes with putting up climbs at a harder grade.
If I pick the year in which 10% of the climbs at a grade have been done and say that the grade is "established" then I get the list:
5.4 1939
5.5 1937
5.6 1940
5.7 1948
5.8 1959
5.9 1962
5.10a 1966
5.10b 1968
5.10c 1970
5.10d 1970
5.11a 1974
5.11b 1973
5.11c 1974
5.11d 1978
5.12a 1979
5.12b 1977
Two points can be made: 1) the rate of establishing new grades in the 60's and 70's was very high, essentially a grade every other year and 2) once a new grade is established, the rate of putting up routes at lower grades decreases. Point 2) can be restated to say that the higher grade competes for climber attention with the lower grades.
If the rate of grade increase were followed, we'd expect roughly 15 new grades to have been established by now.. that is, 5.16a... and for several routes of at least a pitch in length. I don't believe that has happened.
What are the reasons? I think the climbs would be done.. the historic record of route production seems to support the idea that the hardest grades are the ones being produced at a given time.
1) the climbers capable of climbing at the hardest grade are not establishing routes in the Valley;
2) climbs at those grades do not exist in the Valley;
3) climbs at those grades are beyond the limit of climbers.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 07:28am PT
|
Ed, you need to diversify a bit - say finance. :-)
"The performance data shown represent past performance, which is not a guarantee of future results."
Since your model did not explain the post 1980 results, should we infer that those results can only be explained by human induced climbing environmental change? :-)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 11:39am PT
|
TiG - not sure of your thrust here... I assume you are refering to the precipitous drop in FA's in the early 90's. There were several interpretations of the post 1990 data which were interesting and can be informed by new data:
1) The climbs were not yet reported. Anecdotal evidence of FA's in that period indicate that the route production rate may not have fallen off, that roughly 4,000 climbs may be out there. The reason for the uncertainty is that the only means of reporting the majority of climbs is in the guide books, which are infrequently published or choose only a "select" set of climbs. Looking in a 1989 Climbing magazine I found a rather extensive section listing new climbs in many US climbing areas, these sections no longer exist in the magazines.
2) The enforced ban on machine drilling in Yosemite Valley has reduced the number of routes because of the time and effort required to hand drill lines which require extensive use of bolts for protection. Actually this effects a project that I am working on with ablegable, the second half of which will probably require a "siege push" to complete because we cannot drill fast enough to complete the last 3 to 4 slab/face pitches in a day. So the power-drilling ban has a real effect on new route production and directly on the style of putting up new routes.
I suppose a third possible reason is:
3) Yosemite Valley is climbed out.
Which I seriously doubt, having had a rather productive winter walking around, scoping routes, and putting some up. Climbers with better skills and talent than I have could put up many more routes then currently exist. I don't know why they would, except at the top end...
Back to the topic of this post.
I am happy to have an opinion on whether of not 5.14 exists, but that opinion, based on the number of 5.14's I've done, is probably not worth a whole lot. I (nor does anyone I am aware of) have not produced a completed description of the biomechanics of climbing, or of the physics limitations (though I have thought a lot about that, mostly comes down to friction and gravity). Looking at the historical production of routes is a good place to go to see what the current trends are. In fact, the data tell an interesting story. Whether or not that story is true can be discussed in forums like this...
...your point seems to be? That the historical data is irrelevant, incomplete or irrelevant to the discussion? That my analysis is incorrect, misleading, selfserving?
Hey, it's all out there... I'm just trying to use bits of information to puzzle out a question I think is interesting and more complex than I orginally thought: is there a limit to how hard we can climb? and if the answer is yes: how close to that limit are we?
Your criticism is welcome, but you have an opportunity to do more than just snipe about the past informing future... and by the way, you have no model to support your point that the past is not necessarily relevant, you are just being contrarian.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, page 284
also see Shakespeare... courtesy the National Archives
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 12:04pm PT
|
I think the point is that it is easier to progress from, say 5.9 to 5.12 (even as a pioneer) than from 5.12 to .16a, or some other number. That was the asymptote I refered to ( I don't "reference"). We will keep getting new grades, but it will take more and more time per grade. without levitation, there are limits but I don't think anyone knows where they will be.
As far as my own world goes, 5.14 Does not exist, and only a Cap'n Hook's handfull of 13's do.
But, since you can't cross the same river twice (Hereclitus?)maybe it's okay to aproximate previous history, sometimes, to some extent.
though, I hope we Are learning something in this Bush regime and don't have to keep pushing this same turd up a hill forever...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 12:53pm PT
|
here's an interesting thought I had on my bike ride in, and supported by the various published narratives..
WWII and Korea essentially delayed US climbing standards a decade (as can be seen in the fact that the hardest grade climbing was "flat lined" during that decade) and a similar effect exists for the escalation in the Vietnam starting in the late 60's into the early 70's.
These two historical periods may have been responsible for occupying the top climbers (at that time young men) with things other than climbing.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 01:47pm PT
|
Ed, those smiley's you missed...
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 02:14pm PT
|
Does the 'volunteer' army negate this, today? Or are the Good climbers all out in asian sand?
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 27, 2006 - 02:21pm PT
|
once again Ed, nice posts, and a much better way to push the research. It does seem to lend a little credence to the theory.
Kman, let me rephrase a bit, so I'm less rhetorical...
5.14 is a label. What is important is not the words, but what the word implies.
We have already pushed the outer limit of that physically possible move.
 amount of overhang
amount of friction to the rock
amount of
sized holds
All that is left is further combinations of that outer limit move, and x amount of distance per rope length to amount to a new grade. That is, "Just do it" is actually just a lot of really hard 5.13 glassine moves with a touch of friction and little steeper. If we are calling make something steeper and with greater friction and better edges harder, then well, I'm a monkeys uncle.
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 02:50pm PT
|
I guess I'm not getting where you think that these harder climbs that make things "steeper" have "more friction" and "better edges", in your own words... Maybe you should get out and look at some? .14's are visibly, and common sensically (??) more difficult. Steeper, pretty much is synonymous with *less* friction, provided the holds stay the same size or get smaller. The *only* way I can see your logic applying is in the transistion from slab to dead vertical. It's possible that a hold would have more friction then, as you'd be standing (edging)on it, vs. smearing it. Past vertical, however, what you say makes zero sense. The greater the angle, the less friction and the harder it is to stay on the holds. Again, thing called gravity.
All of this is readily viewable when standing under these routes. If you think it's bullsh#t, then try posing your theory to guys that actually climb harder than .13 and see where you get. Regardless, I'd start stocking bananas.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 - 09:58pm PT
|
I will never climb near those numbers...
But it is easy to imagine that the numbers could continue to rise.
As Ed hints, there are physical limits. Coefficients of friction, gravity vectors, force vectors for both static and as mentioned above dynamic moves.
As you approach the physical limits, their will be some very small population of the superstar climbers. They may be taller, have significantly higher strength to weight ratios, a high proportion of fast twitch muscles, and endurance.
But very close to the physical limits, any given move or position will have a very high probability of failure (low margin for error). So not only will the superclimbers need all the physical attributes, but they will need to be able to control those attributes in a very precise way. And the more times they have to do so, the less likely they are to complete a route or sequence - even ignoring fatigue - which will reduce further the probability of success on any give move.
For example, if a sequence consists of 6 straight moves each with a 15% probability of failure, then the probability of success on the sequence is .85 ^ 6 or about 38%. Add 4 more moves and the probabilility is less than 20%.
Change the sequence to 10 moves that you can make on 4 out of 5 tries (20% chance of failure) and now superclimber only makes it 1 time out of 10.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 27, 2006 - 10:02pm PT
|
quite possibly my approach that I'm toying with is really just redefining the definitions of those grades. Let's be clear I don't climb at those grades, but from a theoretical point of view we can theorize that there is a limit, it has already been reached at some crag, somewhere, and that all other difficult climbs are essentially the same thing, but reconfigured and longer.
What is the single most difficult move on the planet?
Define that and we have a contender exemplar.
|
|
426
Sport climber
Buzzard Point, TN
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2006 - 02:47am PT
|
Keep extrapolatin'...you'll find that all moves are actually "4th classy"...
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2006 - 03:42am PT
|
5.13, even some 5.14 moves...I can do that crap in my sleep! Mind over matter dudes..
The waking state is another story. The matter seems to matter more.
But it doesn't really matter cause climbing is always going to involve choosing how close to your limit you want to struggle so what difference does that limit make? For me, it's only a matter of what beautiful rocks are accessible or not at my grade. I'll cash in my training time for the other things in life
peace
Karl
|
|
Teth
climber
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2006 - 10:08am PT
|
It seems to me that the moves on a very hard boulder problem such as the Mandela (V13?) exceed the difficulty of moves on a 5.12 route, so the suggestion that a 5.13 route is just a succession of 5.12 moves does not seem to necessarily hold true. Maybe it just has a couple of V13 moves…or would that make it 5.14?
I would also speculate that the hardest route climbable by humans will likely never be successfully climbed. Say a route is so hard that every move on a route has a 1% chance of success for the best climber in the world, and the route has hundreds of moves. Then the chance of even the best climber in the world climbing it is about the same as one individual winning the lottery. However, although you can play the lottery for a lifetime, a climber can only make a limited number of attempts during the time they are at their peek condition. Thus it would be theoretically possible for the route to be climbed, yet very very unlikely that it ever would and thus that level of climbing would never be reached. Even if it was climbed, there is always the route where every move has a 0.9% chance of success…
Although there are things which can’t be climbed by humans, there will always be something which can be climbed by humans which is harder than what has already been climbed. As for me, I could not discern any holds on the Mandela the first time I looked at the problem. It took a couple months of bouldering on granite before I could return to the Mandela and actually be able to identify the holds.
Teth
|
|
scuffy b
climber
Chalet Neva-Care
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2006 - 11:24am PT
|
I think that arguing over the existence of 5.14 is very little
different in substance than arguing over the existence of 5.10
in 1961 or 5.11 in 1970.
Definitions of grade are meaningless.
If hot climbers are comparing all the 5.13 climbs they have done, and they think there is a big difference between the easiest 5.13s and the hardest 5.13s, they naturally will start
feeling the need to call things 5.14.
Size of holds, number of consecutive desperate moves, coefficient
of friction, steepness, these things don't necessarily mean a thing.
If I'm climbing all the 13s I try, and there are climbs I can't
do, what alternatives are there?
If there is a consensus of relative difficulty between a large number of climbs, drawing a line becomes useful.
You could say there's nothing harder than 5.11, but a big difference between easy 5.11 (New Dimensions) and hard 5.11 (Just Do It).
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2006 - 03:54am PT
|
If I take the grades reported in the magazines at face value, as well as the guide book information, then I can plot the trend of year of grade as a function of grade.
where the lines show the exponential growth of grades, a roughly 14 year grade doubling period...
The yellow line is a generalized logistics curve which shows a 9 year grade doubling period but with a maximum grade of 5.17d.
The logistics curve is used when initial exponential growth is followed by some competition which causes the growth to slow and stop. The "competition" in this case would be the number of climbers with the ability to climb hard grades.
Even with the limited growth in grade, the model predicts that we should be at about 5.16a by now... probably not... unless the bouldering grades are there... but 5.14 grades are about at the right time... I forget when 5.15 was claimed.
grade index YV year exponential logistic
5.4 1 1939 1924 1901
5.5 2 1937 1938 1936
5.6 3 1940 1946 1945
5.7 4 1948 1952 1951
5.8 5 1959 1956 1956
5.9 6 1962 1960 1959
5.10a 7 1966 1963 1962
5.10b 8 1968 1966 1965
5.10c 9 1970 1968 1967
5.10d 10 1970 1970 1969
5.11a 11 1974 1972 1971
5.11b 12 1973 1974 1973
5.11c 13 1974 1975 1975
5.11d 14 1978 1977 1977
5.12a 15 1979 1978 1978
5.12b 16 1977 1979 1980
5.12c 17 - 1981 1982
5.12d 18 - 1982 1983
5.13a 19 - 1983 1985
5.13b 20 - 1984 1986
5.13c 21 - 1985 1988
5.13d 22 - 1986 1989
5.14a 23 - 1987 1991
5.14b 24 - 1988 1992
5.14c 25 - 1988 1994
5.14d 26 - 1989 1996
5.15a 27 - 1990 1997
5.15b 28 - 1991 1999
5.15c 29 - 1991 2001
5.15d 30 - 1992 2003
5.16a 31 - 1993 2005
5.16b 32 - 1993 2008
5.16c 33 - 1994 2010
5.16d 34 - 1995 2013
5.17a 35 - 1995 2017
5.17b 36 - 1996 2022
5.17c 37 - 1996 2028
5.17d 38 - 1997 2039
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2006 - 12:12pm PT
|
what are the bouldering grades?
V0- 5.9
V0 5.10-
V0+ 5.10
V1 5.10+
V2 5.11-
V3 5.11+
V4-V6 5.12
V7-V9 5.13
V10-V13 5.14
V14+ 5.15+
how about the higher grades?
|
|
Majid_S
Mountain climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2006 - 12:28pm PT
|
Ed
At some point in our time, we start to go downhill and our performance will decreased due to our age so could you come up with a chart that shows the relation between age and performance .Can we do the same 5.13 at 70 or no we are back at 5.6. ?
|
|
Nate D
climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2006 - 04:43pm PT
|
Dang Ed - I'm not sure I fully understand some of your charts, but I vote that they eventually must be included in the Yosemite Climbing Museum. You listening, Chicken Skinner??
Providing visuals for this rich historical data is fascinating.
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2006 - 05:13am PT
|
Ed -- I think your bouldering grade conversion is just a *tad* bit off there... You migh want to do a search and check it out.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2006 - 09:22pm PT
|
From the Fishproducts website...
http://www.fishproducts.com/powerandrubber/grades.html
VB = 5.6-5.9
V0- = 5.10a
V0 = 5.10
V0+ = 5.10+
V1 = 5.11a
V2 = 5.11
V3 = 5.11+
V4 = 5.12a
V5 = 5.12
V6 = 5.12+
V7 = 5.13a
V8 = 5.13
V9 = 5.13+
V10 = 5.14a
V11 = 5.14b
V12 = 5.14c
V13 = 5.14d
V14 = 5.15a
V15 = 5.15b
|
|
morphus
Mountain climber
Angleland
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2008 - 01:01pm PT
|
hey Ed, why does your data stop at 5.12?
have you tried running your model with more recent data?
and what exactly is the generalized logistal curve anyhow? (yellow)
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2008 - 01:31pm PT
|
5.13's are not just strings of 5.12 moves, just like 5.10's are not just strings of 5.9 moves. I think the biggest difference is that at the upper end of the climbing scale the ratings are more precise. Two different 5.8's can be markedly different in their difficulty relative to two different 5.12's. If climb A is a little harder than climb B they still might be 5.8. If Climb A is a little harder than Climb B and Climb B is 5.14a, then climb A in 5.14b....and so ratings creep continues upward because every cares how much little bit harder those routes are because they are sooo hard. 1% extra effort is the difference between sending and not sending, while on a 5.8 that likely is not the case.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2008 - 01:32pm PT
|
In reviewing this discussion and data, I see a basic misunderstanding of the YDS. The YDS never purported to compare different types of climbing. In other words, a 5.10a friciton slab is not necessarily as "difficult" as a 5.10a off-width. Instead, as originally established, the YDS mapped levels of difficulty to specific climbs. Thus, for example, a 5.10a slab might be comparable to the first pitch of Maxine's Wall, and a 5.10a off-width comparable to the last pitch of the Crack of Doom.
If a 5.13 slab has no discernable features, we may have reached the limit of possible slab climbing, and there may be no 5.14 slabs. That does not mean, however that we've reached the limit of, say, crack climbing.
Also, it seems we arrogate an objectivity to ourselves that may be unjustified. When we time a runner, we have an objective standard for a second (yes, I know relativity's effect on time, but I don't think it's relevant here). The difference between 5.14d and 5.15a is subjective and, particularly as the difficulty increases, the number of people who can tell the difference -- by doing routes at both grades -- becomes an exceedingly small sample.
When I boil all this down, I think that we have not seen humanity's harderst climbs yet, so I see no reason not to expect 5.17 at some point -- particularly as long as we tie difficulty to specific routes.
|
|
MisterE
Social climber
My Inner Nut
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2008 - 02:30pm PT
|
look at hard single moves on routes like "The Fly" and "Action Directe", and still say there are only 5.12 moves?
|
|
MisterE
Social climber
My Inner Nut
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2008 - 02:34pm PT
|
Sweet troll, though!
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2008 - 04:49pm PT
|
Action Directe is light. It's just a bunch of 5.6 slab moves on overhanging rock.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 15, 2008 - 05:08pm PT
|
holy hummus deep digging retro throw back resurrection of a thread!
Thx MisterE. Kinda trollish, but on topic and something I definitely had thought about. What HighdesertDJ says is really insightful on the subject.
"5.13's are not just strings of 5.12 moves, just like 5.10's are not just strings of 5.9 moves. I think the biggest difference is that at the upper end of the climbing scale the ratings are more precise. Two different 5.8's can be markedly different in their difficulty relative to two different 5.12's. If climb A is a little harder than climb B they still might be 5.8. If Climb A is a little harder than Climb B and Climb B is 5.14a, then climb A in 5.14b....and so ratings creep continues upward because every cares how much little bit harder those routes are because they are sooo hard. 1% extra effort is the difference between sending and not sending, while on a 5.8 that likely is not the case."
There is a refinement and compression on the ratings at the high end of the scale. But I'm extrapolating from my own limited experience since I don't climb that hard. But I've been on 5.12 overhanging sport routes and the ones I've been on were not desperate moves. They were hard, but they were hard 5.11 bouldering cruxes.
Remember 5.8 is supposed to be hard, 5.10 super human.
:)
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2008 - 06:40pm PT
|
He has realized at last that imaginary guitar notes and imaginary vocals exist only in the imagination of The Imaginer . . . and . . . ultimately, who gives a fvck anyway? . . . So . . . So . . . Excuse me . . . Ha ha ha! Mm-mh . . . So . . . Ha ha ha . . . Ha ha ha! Who gives a fvck anyway? So he goes back to his ugly little room and quietly dreams his last imaginary guitar solo . . .
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2008 - 01:47am PT
|
oddly, it you take 5.15b done in 2008, the maximum grade drops to 5.16d which will be done sometime in 2030...
not to troll or anything...
The generalized logistics curve lets you set more parameters.... in this case the maximum, the minimum and the inflection point are all setable parameters.
All this really says is that assuming that average elite climber climbs at about 5.12d/5.13a and the standard deviation of climbing difficulty is about 4 letter grades, so close to a gaussian distribution. Sampling the population of elite climbers, you are unlikely to find a climber capable of climbing better than about 5.16d, the climber doesn't exist and will never exist...
harsh, but that's what the numbers say... with this set of assumptions.
|
|
MisterE
Social climber
My Inner Nut
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2008 - 02:11am PT
|
"oddly, it you take 5.15b done in 2008, the maximum grade drops to 5.16d which will be done sometime in 2030..."
Sure it's going to be a HARD .16d ( I just love writing that!), because nobody would consider breaking the 5.17 grade!
lol!
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2008 - 10:47am PT
|
Just wait for the Gecko Rubber, DNA technology applied to human potential, and mind-body-spirit discipline-evolution applied to climbing. 5.16d will seem light.
Our vision is always a big stumbling block. We're already doing beyond what was unthinkable 25 years ago. How long before the next unthinkable?
Peace
Karl
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Flatland, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2008 - 10:55am PT
|
So we should down-grade every thing 5.14 and above...
Huh....
SOunds good but.. that shite is hard... Really really hard... regardless what you call it.
|
|
Eric Beck
Sport climber
Bishop, California
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 - 12:31pm PT
|
I have always suspected that there are physical limits. A while back, maybe 20 years ago I made a small investigation into this in an area where we have good data, track. I plotted the progression of world records agains their dates, with the records converted into velocities, meters/second.
I expected to see a convex curve suggesting an asymptotic approach to a limit. Instead it was a concave curve ( getting steeper ) indicating that the limit was not near. Perhaps someone who has access to current data would be interested in updating this study.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 - 01:01pm PT
|
Eric,
my methodology is described up thread... the difficulty is to figure out when a grade is established, and that I did by looking at the time dependence of climbs at grade... the following graph has that:
which results in this table:
If I pick the year in which 10% of the climbs at a grade have been done and say that the grade is "established" then I get the list:
5.4 1939
5.5 1937
5.6 1940
5.7 1948
5.8 1959
5.9 1962
5.10a 1966
5.10b 1968
5.10c 1970
5.10d 1970
5.11a 1974
5.11b 1973
5.11c 1974
5.11d 1978
5.12a 1979
5.12b 1977
This is for Yosemite Valley only, not all climbing.
I don't have enough data for climbs grade 5.12c and higher yet.
This gives the blue line curve, overwhich is laid the exponential growth curve and a logistics curve...
we are surely not on an exponential growth curve anymore, here is the table of the curves:
grade index YV year exponential logistic
5.4 1 1939 1924 1901
5.5 2 1937 1938 1936
5.6 3 1940 1946 1945
5.7 4 1948 1952 1951
5.8 5 1959 1956 1956
5.9 6 1962 1960 1959
5.10a 7 1966 1963 1962
5.10b 8 1968 1966 1965
5.10c 9 1970 1968 1967
5.10d 10 1970 1970 1969
5.11a 11 1974 1972 1971
5.11b 12 1973 1974 1973
5.11c 13 1974 1975 1975
5.11d 14 1978 1977 1977
5.12a 15 1979 1978 1978
5.12b 16 1977 1979 1980
5.12c 17 - 1981 1982
5.12d 18 - 1982 1983
5.13a 19 - 1983 1985
5.13b 20 - 1984 1986
5.13c 21 - 1985 1988
5.13d 22 - 1986 1989
5.14a 23 - 1987 1991
5.14b 24 - 1988 1992
5.14c 25 - 1988 1994
5.14d 26 - 1989 1996
5.15a 27 - 1990 1997
5.15b 28 - 1991 1999
5.15c 29 - 1991 2001
5.15d 30 - 1992 2003
5.16a 31 - 1993 2005
5.16b 32 - 1993 2008
5.16c 33 - 1994 2010
5.16d 34 - 1995 2013
5.17a 35 - 1995 2017
5.17b 36 - 1996 2022
5.17c 37 - 1996 2028
5.17d 38 - 1997 2039
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 - 06:51pm PT
|
I think it is because a lot of 5.9 FAs when up after that date...
I'm not totally happy with my definition of when the grade was "established" but the definition I offer at least has to do with some statistical threshold.
My first attempt was to use the first reported instance of a grade in the climbing magazines, but that has the obvious problem that a consensus grade had not been established.
I could have used 50% as the threshold, but that seems rather late. Less than 10% suffers from statistical noise.
Any other quantitative definition could be used.
As for Excel, it is merely a tool, one I use a lot for management, that is simple to use for these musing too. I could use some more sophisticated tools (like Root, or IDL but I tired at keeping up with the continuous updating and revisions for the amount of time I use them)...
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 - 08:49pm PT
|
Wes- I'm pretty sure that people realized that a lot of the 11+'s were sandbagged and so someone just said screw it, this is .12b its way harder than any 11+ I've done. After that people upgraded a lot of the ratings.
|
|
Sheets
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2008 - 11:58pm PT
|
Curious as to whether climbing accomplishments follow a form close to marathon records:
The men's record seems to be approaching an asymptote, not sure whether it is above or below 2 hours. I wonder what the climbing curve looks like.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 81 of total 81 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!