Author Topic: objectivity to rate a route  (Read 2714 times)

Offline eyebolter

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 611
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #45 on: March 31, 2014, 05:24:46 PM »
Not sure that I want to wade in here but....

Don't forget anchors.  Routes that you had to top out on have been reduced in commitment due to rappel anchors (Royal Arches, for example).  I had to sleep on a ledge after blowing the North Dome gully descent.   It was a grade III, but is it still a III given that most people rap the route without even doing the jungle pitches at the top?

I think the overall grade has some merit, but with the addition of rap anchors (don't get me wrong, I'm all for them) it does make it "easier."

Forget girdle traverses.  A commitment rating is silly since you can generally rap to the ground and be drinking beer within an hour.


Online strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4712
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #46 on: March 31, 2014, 05:33:01 PM »
I dunno..i did the Big Plumb and it was pretty hard..I was wishing to rap off a few times

Offline DGoguen

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #47 on: March 31, 2014, 06:56:31 PM »
Not sure that I want to wade in here but....
(Royal Arches, for example). 

Steve Ropers 1964 guide
Royal Arches
III 5.6 with two pendulums

Chris McNamara/Steve Roper 2003 Supertopo guide
Royal Arches
5.7 A0
Time to climb the route: 7-10 hours
Descent time 2-3 hours
Height of route: 1400 '

But either way you couldn't walk off in that time.
Friends of mine who will remain nameless spent the night on a ledge less than a rope length from the ground without realizing it until morning on that one.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 07:32:55 PM by DGoguen »
Don't Climb

Offline lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #48 on: March 31, 2014, 07:17:10 PM »
Fairview Dome is about 9 pitches, more or less, depending on rope length and ability of the party; Interloper is 2 pitches (both full value) and then you rappel off or finish on something MUCH easier. I don't understand the comparison!! Fairview is obviously more serious (III in the outdated NCCS scale, while Interloper only gets II)!

There is two crux in interloper...and maybe a direct finish. I have to ask. I did it in nine pitch or so, avoiding the last duifficulty.

If you look just at the YDS system, it is a 5.10...harder than a 5.9

If you look at the overall difficulty, interloper is a II and fairview a III for pratically the same length. So, fairview is harder.

It gave an idea that the length and YDS rating is, maybe, not as good as the NCCs with YDS and time.

Offline lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #49 on: March 31, 2014, 07:20:58 PM »
Don't forget anchors.  Routes that you had to top out on have been reduced in commitment due to rappel anchors (Royal Arches, for example).  I had to sleep on a ledge after blowing the North Dome gully descent.   It was a grade III, but is it still a III given that most people rap the route without even doing the jungle pitches at the top?

Not sure that the NCCS take consideration for rap anchor. It does when you climb and don't have to do it with your gear, but the descent time is not in the rating as much as the approach time. Most be verify.

Offline sneoh

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 2083
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #50 on: April 01, 2014, 12:28:14 AM »
Sure, throw it all in there for good measure and follow up with pitch by pitch plus descent description!
Example - Dream of Wild Turkeys YDS: 5.10a French: 6a Ewbanks: 18 UIAA: VI+ British: E1 5a  Type:  Trad, 7 pitches, 700', Grade III
and then http://mountainproject.com/v/dream-of-wild-turkeys/105732275

"Safe enough", LL? 
We got our rope stuck on this one. I was an idiot. :)

"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

Online strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4712
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #51 on: April 01, 2014, 09:36:44 AM »
If one does Royal Arches in just over an hour..is that grade I ??.....like Bombardment maybe ?

Offline Jeff

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 811
  • I love YaBB 1 Gold!
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #52 on: April 01, 2014, 10:38:01 AM »
Luke: I can't do it, but there is a climb at the Gunks with your name all over it ---"Persistance"!

Online strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4712
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #53 on: April 01, 2014, 10:46:14 AM »
Stannard is rumored to have taken 160 tries..grade VII i guess

Offline lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #54 on: April 02, 2014, 09:31:04 PM »
Luke: I can't do it, but there is a climb at the Gunks with your name all over it ---"Persistance"!

Yes. Maybe you know that references: "a national climbing classification proposed" by Leight Ortenberger, in 1963 at http://www.supertopo.com/...php?topic_id=1039859

They identify two difficulty in the text. One is when a climber lower the overall difficulty of a route (beta, working a route, bolt, multiple repetition). I think that it best describe sport climber

and the other lower the difficulty of the hardiest pitch and climb route with a high commitment rating (ground up, route finding, on sigh). The trad climber.

So, it is not because some one place a cam that he is a trad or bolt to be a sport. It is when you lower the commitment rating to one for sport or prefer a hight commitment for trad.

Offline JBrochu

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Doing God's work
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #55 on: April 08, 2014, 07:11:33 PM »
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 Pete Jackson

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
  • RCA guy. Want to help? PM me.
    • Rumney Climbers Association
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #56 on: April 10, 2014, 05:58:37 PM »
So, it is not because some one place a cam that he is a trad or bolt to be a sport. It is when you lower the commitment rating to one for sport or prefer a hight commitment for trad.

To answer your original question, "Which system do you prefer?", I'd say the YDS with commitment ratings and star ratings for aesthetics does the trick. This is the method in use by almost all modern guidebook authors in the US, and I feel like it works for me. I don't think there's any reason to change it just to suit someone else's preference.

It gives me all of the information I need, while preserving the adventure. I've onsighted at grades 1-2 grades harder than I should be able to, and I've bailed off of 5.5s that scared the shit out of me (I'm looking at you, Whitehorse Ledge).  I wouldn't want the guidebooks in either of those cases to be any different.

There isn't a perfectly objective way to grade a route. They're all different, and so are the people who climb them. If you were to be successful at coming up with a totally objective system, you'd kill the magic.



We came to climb, not to whine.

Offline lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #57 on: April 10, 2014, 11:21:14 PM »
I analyze two rating systems used in north conway that you can found in Ed webster guide book and the recent guide book. I found that one is wrote for the elite and the other to the average climber. One is wrote if you are already good, and the other is wrote if you like to have a nice climbing day, like lake view at canon, or royal arches in yosemite.  Accessibility, it is all what the trad climber want...no bolt, no reserve area...just enjoy a full day of climbing. [...] The question is: which gradation system do you like to have as a climber?

Then we moved uphill and my partner climbed on his 5.14a project for an hour or so, which is a challenging route for him to climb.

you are part of the elite...



Offline Pete Jackson

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
  • RCA guy. Want to help? PM me.
    • Rumney Climbers Association
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #58 on: April 11, 2014, 12:52:36 AM »
I analyze two rating systems used in north conway that you can found in Ed webster guide book and the recent guide book. I found that one is wrote for the elite and the other to the average climber. One is wrote if you are already good, and the other is wrote if you like to have a nice climbing day, like lake view at canon, or royal arches in yosemite.  Accessibility, it is all what the trad climber want...no bolt, no reserve area...just enjoy a full day of climbing. [...] The question is: which gradation system do you like to have as a climber?

Then we moved uphill and my partner climbed on his 5.14a project for an hour or so, which is a challenging route for him to climb.

you are part of the elite...

No, I most certainly am not elite, and that was my point (on the other thread)!

You took me a little out of context there. I was pointing out that I can climb at a sport crag with elite climbers, in spite of the fact that I struggle to get off the ground on 5.11s that they'd warm up on. (True story)

But that has nothing to do with the YDS vs NCCS thing, though I feel like you're using it to discredit my position on the YDS because it's convenient.

I feel like the NCCS wouldn't help me choose routes any better or worse than the YDS does today. This would be true regardless of any change in my skill level, up or down. It's all subjective within a range. The YDS keeps me from getting in way over my head, but only when used in combination with my brain.

And if I am elite, then strandman is a sporto and Al wears a suit to work. :-). Seriously, have you seen my tick list? Full of 5.9s.
We came to climb, not to whine.

Online strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 4712
Re: objectivity to rate a route
« Reply #59 on: April 11, 2014, 10:18:37 AM »
LL..Pete said his PARTNER climbed his 14a project 

the nccs is shit  and always will be..

I'm off to bolt some 5.6's