Author Topic: trad rating system problem  (Read 976 times)

Offline lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1535
trad rating system problem
« on: March 22, 2014, 05:50:23 PM »
Looking for a description of accepted standard for 5.6 to 5.9 YDS difficulty.

I red: "that the rating is more often employed as a form of bragging, either by upgrading your own climb or downgrading the other fellow's, than as a sincere effort to inform". The paper wrote in 1963 is very interesting on the need to objectively rate a route. I am surprise. I didn't found any uniform standard or try on the subject. One can see the interest to improve our sport by giving a better understanding of the rating.

Looking for standard or the way that you rate a climb and gave it a number.   

Offline JBrochu

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Doing God's work
Re: trad rating system problem
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2014, 06:27:32 PM »
I have a feeling, a feeling deep inside
oh yeah

« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 06:38:05 PM by JBrochu »
Have a quiche, now, or maybe a tort.  You deserve it!
-bristolpipe

I like to keep things simple, even if it's faaaken painful and miserable.
-Stoney Middleton

This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the Lord intended a more divine means of consumption.
-Friar Tuck

Offline sneoh

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2032
Re: trad rating system problem
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2014, 06:47:22 PM »
Like politics, rating is local. 
I do not have beef with anyone if rating is mostly consistent across climbs at a crag. 
An occasional sandbag is fun too as long as it is safe.

If I were ask to give something a grade after I have been on it, I always try to rate it relative to climbs in its neighborhood.  What is is little more tricky is rating a technical climb or one which has non-obvious Beta.  On onsight, these can feel pretty hard for the grade.  The second or third time up, it would feel easier so how to rate?

"You have to decide to do a flag, where you can broke your vertebrae or a barn door depending of your pro" - the poster formerly known as Champ

Offline strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4673
Re: trad rating system problem
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2014, 07:55:22 PM »
Track down Jim Bridwell's a,b,c,d system and drive yourself crazy

Offline The other tomcat

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
Re: trad rating system problem
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2014, 09:26:56 PM »
And Duet Direct was once rated 5.7 I've been told, because the hardest single move...lol !

Over time most things get straightened out rating wise. Changing venues throws me off. I used to climb well in the Gunks and suck here, so I moved here and learned to smear, climb cracks and slabs, and now I suck in the Gunks, with the precise footwork and overhangs.

So maybe it's not all sandbagging or mis-rating. System overall seems pretty good to me.

Those Brit ratings scare me...
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 09:30:14 PM by The other tomcat »
Tom Stryker

Offline tradmanclimbz

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 3868
  • Nick Goldsmith
Re: trad rating system problem
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2014, 08:19:24 AM »
seems sandbagged  every place I go.. you will have that when you suck ;D

Offline eyebolter

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
Re: trad rating system problem
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2014, 07:03:31 PM »
To know what 5.9 really is, you need to go to Tahquitz and do Open Book, the first route rated 5.9 (Oliver perry Smith did 5.9 in Germany in 1909, but it was rated on their scale).   Never done it myself but that would be the benchmark if ever there was one.

That is one thing I liked about Sherman's "V" scale; for each V grade he listed the routes at Hueco that were considered the standard at each grade.   Of course they were skewed to his strengths; the V4 standard was desperate if you were short, and the V8, Mushroom Roof, was easier for the small light climber, but the idea has merit.


Offline sneoh

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2032
Re: trad rating system problem
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2014, 10:58:19 PM »
Those Brit ratings scare me...
+1.  For sure, even if I could come close to understanding the Brit system.

"You have to decide to do a flag, where you can broke your vertebrae or a barn door depending of your pro" - the poster formerly known as Champ

Offline strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4673
Re: trad rating system problem
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2014, 09:14:33 AM »
Airation  E3 6A..Eyeless E4 6B..Book..E1 5B....i guess..I did an E 5/6 6A once at Gogarth,,11D or 12A and 40-50' fall potential

Offline ralbert20

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 199
Re: trad rating system problem
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2014, 02:44:33 PM »
To know what 5.9 really is, you need to go to Tahquitz and do Open Book, the first route rated 5.9 (Oliver perry Smith did 5.9 in Germany in 1909, but it was rated on their scale).   Never done it myself but that would be the benchmark if ever there was one.

Awesome! I'll be there next week and be sure to let you all know!  ;)

From mountainproject:

"This 3 pitch beauty ascends a very obvious dihedral. The first few moves off the deck are exciting and lead to an enjoyable first belay in a little nook.

The second pitch contains the business. You layback a 4" crack for 60+ feet to gain a belay either inside a little cave or right after depending on what gear you have left. The last pich starts with some fun slab moves and exits to easier ground. Top out and hike to the top of Taquitz on easy 3rd class. Then you can hike out."

Offline strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4673
Re: trad rating system problem
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2014, 04:58:36 PM »
AARRGGHHHH..hiking off taquitz....Suicide is much better..Valhalla....Insomnia....Rebolting etc..the list goes on

Offline eyebolter

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
Re: trad rating system problem
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2014, 05:25:08 PM »
To know what 5.9 really is, you need to go to Tahquitz and do Open Book, the first route rated 5.9 (Oliver perry Smith did 5.9 in Germany in 1909, but it was rated on their scale).   Never done it myself but that would be the benchmark if ever there was one.

Awesome! I'll be there next week and be sure to let you all know!  ;)

From mountainproject:

"This 3 pitch beauty ascends a very obvious dihedral. The first few moves off the deck are exciting and lead to an enjoyable first belay in a little nook.

The second pitch contains the business. You layback a 4" crack for 60+ feet to gain a belay either inside a little cave or right after depending on what gear you have left. The last pich starts with some fun slab moves and exits to easier ground. Top out and hike to the top of Taquitz on easy 3rd class. Then you can hike out."

Great!  Let us know.  Wondering how it compares to Recompense for example. 

Offline lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1535
Re: trad rating system problem
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2014, 07:13:58 PM »
To know what 5.9 really is, you need to go to Tahquitz and do Open Book, the first route rated 5.9 (Oliver perry Smith did 5.9 in Germany in 1909, but it was rated on their scale).   Never done it myself but that would be the benchmark if ever there was one.

That is one thing I liked about Sherman's "V" scale; for each V grade he listed the routes at Hueco that were considered the standard at each grade.   Of course they were skewed to his strengths; the V4 standard was desperate if you were short, and the V8, Mushroom Roof, was easier for the small light climber, but the idea has merit.

I saw those liste. They argue that they don't have enought data to make an analysis of different move, so they asked for listed of route of the same grade. If you have twenty person whit there own liste, even if they rate it differently, you can found similarity in the movement o the technique. Some listed diedral, layback, etc on there equal value of difficulty. But did any body use all those data to find a solid statement to describe all level?

Offline M_Sprague

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1591
Re: trad rating system problem
« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2014, 08:38:08 PM »
With the variability of climbers, trying to get some exactly defined description of what a particular grade entails doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It is a little like grading physical beauty. The best you can do is collect all the subjective values and then average them up. It works pretty well for climbing.

Routes only work as benchmarks once there has been significant consensus, and than you can set them as markers so you don't get grade drift of the scale. But then you have historical shifts in the current styles most appreciated, and training, so in the 80s a slab might feel 5.9 to most and later feel 5.11 to persons drilled on overhanging bouldering and vice versa. The route might get all slick too or lose holds.

Using a benchmark defined by only one person, like the original V grade, doesn't make much sense beyond Sherman's narrow use of it.
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is not a path and leave a trail."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Offline lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1535
Re: trad rating system problem
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2014, 01:40:34 AM »
Track down Jim Bridwell's a,b,c,d system and drive yourself crazy

personally, I grade the move as, from 5.3 to 5.7, three point of contact, 5.3 beeing the most obvious. 5.7 and 5.8 awhere you have to rest in a move, 5.8 to 5.10 as two point of contact, the hold that yo had in the lower grade is missing and you have to use more power to make the move (sonme beginer power a move because they don't see the hold) and 5.11 and higher as oone point of contact. You pull with one arm or you have three point and any of them can't take all your weight. In that case you have to use your body to keep your equilibrum and your strenght to maintain the grip.

It is just a try to make a rating system that work. I test it at many places and ordinaly it is pretty exact with the grade of the guide book. (except sand bag)