objectivity to rate a route

[lucky luke]

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?

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)

If you point out that every body can climb at rumey and enjoy doing sport climbing, I agree with you. As I pointed out, it is always question of 5.xxxx when people do sport. You said that you climb with the elite, as I prefer to climb with a partner at my level or a good friend. But those are not relate to the rating systems. It is some distinction between too ethic.

As you climb at rumney, the NCCS rating is pratically always I, so , you don't talk about rating over, like rate three or four. Today, I admit that some people try to bring all the climb to a rate I. The nose in 2 hours 56 minutes is a good example of that. The rope of 70 meters...Working the route, etc.  I admit that for that kind of climb, the NCCS rating is not very usefull as they work the route previously and the adventure is not to climb the route for the first time, but to realize an exploit in climbing faster, without rope or to win a conmpetition.

For those people who like to climb 5.9 and prepare the information...

Oups... if I bring you in a 5.9 you won't know if you have to bring a pack with food and headlamp or just your shoes and harness.

[Pete Jackson]

I broke my New Years resolution and engaged on this thread.

I said that the YDS with commitment ratings and star ratings for aesthetics do fine for me. I don't feel like the I II III IV V VI VII grades help me choose more or less appropriate routes than knowing how hard the route climbs. They're good to know, but since I always read the route description and talk to people who have climbed the routes that are my multi pitch goals, what does it really add?

If anything, they're confusing. Half day commitment? For whom? Is that because of a long approach or a because it's a lot of pitches? Is it a half day for me but only if I don't miss a critical rappel anchor that requires a swing on rap #3? Only the route description and the experience of others can tell you this for sure.

And I always pack food and a headlamp. Even when climbing at the Parking Lot Wall! I went out to 5.8 crag yesterday and climbed 6 hours. I brought food  and a headlamp. But I didn't climb any grade II-IIIs.

[strandman]

So a place like the captain..has a pretty long approach.. 3-4 hours if the road is closed..then maybe 4-5 hours climbing and a 2-3 for the way out is that grade IV ?  NO because the climbing part is what should count
Mt Watkins in Yosemite has a pretty long approach and longer descent..but the climbing is still very time consuming..so VI still

I'm going crazy

[Pete Jackson]

So a place like the captain..has a pretty long approach.. 3-4 hours if the road is closed..then maybe 4-5 hours climbing and a 2-3 for the way out is that grade IV ?  NO because the climbing part is what should count
Mt Watkins in Yosemite has a pretty long approach and longer descent..but the climbing is still very time consuming..so VI still

I'm going crazy

Right, exactly! There is no "grade" -- subjective, objective, or blended -- that can properly prepare someone for a route without any other information. That's why I am so glad that guidebooks have words in them, and that veteran climbers are usually willing to share route beta!

Telling me that we're going out to do a 10-pitch 5.8 with a short, but difficult approach is much more useful information than telling me we're going out to climb a Grade II-III. But in neither case do I have enough information to pack my pack, make my plans, select my approach shoes, or decide to do something else that day instead.

How'd we get started on this topic, anyway?

[sneoh]

I did not want to broach the subject of approach but it is a real factor.
Eric and I got killed on the approach to L29 because we did not get directions for the most efficient/fast approach.  I was half dead and had nasty scratches up and down my limbs by the time we got to the base.
Epic ensued.  'Nuff said.

[lucky luke]

If anything, they're confusing. Half day commitment? For whom? Is that because of a long approach or a because it's a lot of pitches? Is it a half day for me but only if I don't miss a critical rappel anchor that requires a swing on rap #3? Only the route description and the experience of others can tell you this for sure. [...]

There is no "grade" -- subjective, objective, or blended -- that can properly prepare someone for a route without any other information. That's why I am so glad that guidebooks have words in them, and that veteran climbers are usually willing to share route beta!

With the half day commitment I can compare a route that I climb in east to a route that I climb in west. Of course, time is maybe the best, but can create some confusion. If you miss the rap#3 and it is in your ascent, like vertigo, it is because you had a problem with route finding. It can be because you miss it or because you are not train for that. it is the same as when you climb a 5,10. You can miss a hold and not be able to climb the move or you can not be at the level to climb the route. So, it is two kind of difficulty (route finding and the hardiest move.

As many don't know about the NCCS system, I most say that the approach and descent time was not in the rating. It is just the time to go from the bottom to the top. It is a confusion to use the approach as it is a confusion to discuss about route finding. If every body miss the rap #3, the route will take longer for every body. Other way, those you made a mistake will take longer.

[DaveR]

Bla-bla-bla,

Ratings for grade and time are all so subjective that they are to a degree BS.

Do the approach to L29 with a local and it is not bad at all. I got hosed the first time like Sneoh did. Which time should I put in the book because there was a 2 hour difference each way?

When Bouchard and Richie were training for Shivling we watched them simul-climb the Prow faster than most people could climb Thin Air. We talked with them afterwards and thier rack consisted of a few runners and 2 cams! Should we now give it a commitment rating of 1?

[xcrag_corex]

Hope the Romans at least held on to the X position....

[lucky luke]

Ratings for grade and time are all so subjective that they are to a degree BS.

First, one can ask how the guy did the rating systems in 1963. There is a lot of misunderstanding because people don't take the time to read and explain what the other did, before being able to decide what is good or what is bad. Ordinarly, people try to keep there idea even if they don't know the other theory.

For your knowledge only, we can describe the rating objectively. If you take one hundred climber and bring them to new cliff to climb route that they never heard about it, you are going to be able to do statistic. It is what people call a common agreement I think. But it is measurable. In fact, each person as there limit. One climber do all 5.6, 70% of the 5.7, 50 % of the 5.8, 30% of the 5.9 and 0 5.10. it is a normal curve. With those data, you can say the level of the climber as he climbed 50% of the route easily and he didn't know for the other 50% if he is good enougth. If you take all the climber who climb 50 % of the 5.8 route, you can analyse the difficulty of the route that they climb and describe objectively the limits of those climber, as most of the time, climber fall at the same place. It look complicate, but there is many complicated things that we can oversimplify for convenience. For example, the rope. all the theory about the rope is very sophisticates, but we can resume it with the fall factor for all climber.

Statistically, one person could compare his performance with the one of the population by climbing on sight a route of the same grade in an other area, without asking all the beta to avoid any problem and climb one or two grade over his limits. 
   

 

[JBro]

.

[DaveR]

Ratings for grade and time are all so subjective that they are to a degree BS.

First, one can ask how the guy did the rating systems in 1963. There is a lot of misunderstanding because people don't take the time to read and explain what the other did, before being able to decide what is good or what is bad. Ordinarly, people try to keep there idea even if they don't know the other theory.

For your knowledge only, we can describe the rating objectively. If you take one hundred climber and bring them to new cliff to climb route that they never heard about it, you are going to be able to do statistic. It is what people call a common agreement I think. But it is measurable. In fact, each person as there limit. One climber do all 5.6, 70% of the 5.7, 50 % of the 5.8, 30% of the 5.9 and 0 5.10. it is a normal curve. With those data, you can say the level of the climber as he climbed 50% of the route easily and he didn't know for the other 50% if he is good enougth. If you take all the climber who climb 50 % of the 5.8 route, you can analyse the difficulty of the route that they climb and describe objectively the limits of those climber, as most of the time, climber fall at the same place. It look complicate, but there is many complicated things that we can oversimplify for convenience. For example, the rope. all the theory about the rope is very sophisticates, but we can resume it with the fall factor for all climber.

Statistically, one person could compare his performance with the one of the population by climbing on sight a route of the same grade in an other area, without asking all the beta to avoid any problem and climb one or two grade over his limits. 
   

I like most people here do not need you explaining the grading system. Many here have been climbing longer than you have  been on the planet and know more climbing history than you ever will! Ratings are very subjective and if you have climbed in many different areas you would realize that.

[strandman]

LL- i have been climbing a long fucking time and have no idea what you are talking about. How are beginners supposed too ?

Maybe you should climb more and chill the fuck out !

[lucky luke]

I like most people here do not need you explaining the grading system. Many here have been climbing longer than you have  been on the planet and know more climbing history than you ever will! Ratings are very subjective and if you have climbed in many different areas you would realize that.

We are in a beginer forum and we discuss about the objectivity of the rating. The method used by Leight Orternberger exist(http://www.supertopo.com/...php?topic_id=1039859). It most ber very similar as they used comparaison method. There is also some other method used in France for the skill of the climber. With competition, they study the sport very deeply. I think that it is great that some people keep the NCCS system as it make the sport more accessible for many of us.

That doesn"t means that  people most know that, but at least that the theory exist. And it is normal, to be able to discuss that in a climbing forum.

Some people, like Brochu, are very agressive, it is pratically intimidation.

[Jeff]

Luke, I have to agree with Dave and Strand-- and JBrochu is trying to say it in pictures--this horse is dead!!! (English expression= there is no point in continuing to beat a dead horse==cette discussion continue bien trop longue!) For beginners today, the fact that Leigh Ortenberger used a rating system in the 50s and 60s is of historical interest only. I remember the NCCS system as do some few of the other "old farts" regularly on here. The YDS came into use to better unite the various idiosyncratic grading systems used or misused around North America and became the most generally used because the majority found it the most helpful way to compare climbs from one area to another. Those of us who traveled a lot in the late 60s and 70s found that certain areas were "stiff for the grade"--ex. the Gunks and CT  here in the northeast. It was also accepted general knowledge that Yosemite granite, because of the continuous nature of the difficulties of its cracks, and the slipperiness of the "glacial polish", took some getting used to. THIS IS STILL TRUE today. Beginners (or people who haven't traveled to many different areas) are wise to climb grades well below their imagined max until they get an idea of the local relative grades. That should be enough beta to keep some "adventure " in climbing. The NCCS is useful today as an historic footnote--trying to bring it back is as useful as beating that horse!

[strandman]

Jeff..don't you try to get all wordy and logical   

Can you beat a horse before you kill it ?